Top PDF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ) ) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ) ) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ) ) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

9. The Commonwealth has made public its long-standing goal and policy, independent of and adopted prior to this Agreement or the Department of Justice’s findings, of transitioning from an institutional model of care to a community-based system that meets the needs of all individuals with ID/DD, including those with the most complex needs, and of using its limited resources to serve effectively the greatest number of individuals with ID/DD. This goal and policy have resulted in a decline in the population of the state training centers from approximately 6000 individuals to approximately 1000 individuals. The Commonwealth has determined that this significant and ongoing decline makes continued operation of residential services fiscally impractical. Consequently, and in accordance with the Commonwealth’s policy of transitioning its system of developmental services to a community-based system, the Commonwealth will provide to the General Assembly within one year of the effective date of this Agreement, a plan, developed in consultation with the Chairmen of Virginia’s House of Delegates Appropriations and Senate Finance Committees, to cease residential operations at four of the five training centers by the end of State Fiscal Year 2021.
Show more

38 Read more

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Richard and Lillian Anderson (collectively “Plaintiffs”), husband and wife, filed this asbestos personal injury action in the Superior Court of Washington for Pierce County on September 3, 2009, asserting claims against multiple parties including defendant Salmon Bay and Gravel Company, Inc. (alternatively “Salmon Bay” or “Defendant”), a Seattle-area retailer of tools and construction supplies. The matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and then, on February 8, 2010, transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to be included in the multi-district Asbestos Liability Litigation (MDL 875). (Docs. 1, 2.)
Show more

15 Read more

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA New Orleans Division

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA New Orleans Division

The scheduling order issued by the court in this matter requires the parties to exchange initial disclosures on or before December 12, 2006. Undersigned counsel submitted the initial disclosures on behalf of the Plaintiffs prior to the scheduling conference. Defendants have yet to submit their initial disclosures.

9 Read more

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

1. The terms “you,” “yourself,” or “your,” as used herein, refer to you, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“FRBNY”), all departments, offices, and agencies of the FRBNY, including but not limited to employees of the FRBNY, your attorneys, and any person acting expressly as your agent, trustee, or representative in any capacity that would give rise to possession of the documents identified by this request, including but not limited to the trustees named under the AIG Credit Facility Trust Agreement dated January 16, 2009.

18 Read more

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Eastern District of Texas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Eastern District of Texas

A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to pennit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, co[r]

7 Read more

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

As a direct result of the negligence of the defendants and the unseaworthiness of the vessel, plaintiff, JAMES JOHNSON is entitled to recover from the defendants reasonable and just compensatory, special and general damages as prayed for herein and to be awarded by this Honorable Court in the following non-exclusive respects:

9 Read more

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN GREEN BAY DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN GREEN BAY DIVISION

The Federal Circuit has held that district courts may construe claim terms on summary judgment motions as necessary to dispose of the case. Vivid Techs v. Am. Science & Eng. 200 F 3d 795, 803 (Fed Cir 2003). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Plaintiff could have presented an argument regarding claim construction to this Court. If claim

9 Read more

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE (Southern Division)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE (Southern Division)

62. Informal Dispute Resolution. Any dispute subject to Dispute Resolution under this Consent Decree shall first be the subject of informal negotiations. The dispute shall be considered to have arisen when Chattanooga sends the United States a written Notice of Dispute. Such Notice of Dispute shall state clearly the matter in dispute. The period of informal negotia- tions shall not exceed thirty (30) Days from the date the dispute arises, unless that period is modified by written agreement between the United States and Chattanooga. The United States shall consult with the State and the TCWN during the period of informal negotiations. If the United States and Chattanooga cannot resolve a dispute by informal negotiations, then the position advanced by the United States shall be considered binding unless, within forty-five (45) Days after the conclusion of the informal negotiation period, Chattanooga invokes formal dispute resolution procedures as set forth below.
Show more

102 Read more

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

52. In 1947, the United States Supreme Court held that judicial enforcement of racial covenants violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but many real estate agents, developers, banks, and neighborhood associations continued to enforce racial segregation. A citywide association of homeowner groups called the Federated Property Homeowners of Detroit created a network to monitor the selling of homes to Black buyers and harassed real estate brokers who sold homes to them. Black residents who moved into white neighborhoods often faced harassment, violence, and acts of racial terrorism such as burning effigies and crosses.
Show more

110 Read more

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

the Court of Appeals. See Residential Funding Co., LLC v. Saurman, 490 Mich. 909, 805 N.W.2d 183 (Mich. 2011). The Michigan Supreme Court held that MERS owned an interest in the indebtedness secured by the mortgage, and was therefore authorized to foreclose by advertisement. Id. at 909, 805 N.W.2d at 183 (citing Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.3204(1)(d)). MERS was the record holder of the mortgage in this case; it therefore had the authority to foreclose. Nothing prevented assignment of the mortgage to HSBC, and such an assignment is permitted under the terms of the mortgage. See Am. Compl. Ex. 13 (transferring rights in the property and power of sale to MERS and “the successors and assigns of MERS”).
Show more

13 Read more

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

primary jurisdiction doctrine, which “allows a federal court to refer a matter extending beyond the ‘conventional experience of judges’ or ‘falling within the realm of administrative discretion’ to an administrative agency with more specialized experience, expertise, and insight.’” Arsberry v. Ill., 244 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2001). Now that the FCC has ruled, Performant appeals to the Court’s general power to manage its docket in the normal course of resolving cases. This power is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).
Show more

6 Read more

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The cases discussed supra provide little guidance on that specific issue. However, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has previously considered the implications of an insured with a “replacement cost” insurance contract seeking an actual cash value payment. In Kane v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 841 A.2d 1038 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003), where the policy’s “Loss Settlement” language was identical to that found in this case, the insured challenged the trial court’s holding that when a replacement cost insurance contract does not define actual cash value, the actual cash value payment may include deductions for depreciation. The court found that in a situation where only the timing of the payment was at issue—that is, the insured would receive an actual cash value payment initially, and only needed to contract for the damaged property to be repaired or replaced in order to receive the additional replacement cost of the damaged property—the insurer may deduct depreciation from an actual cash value payment. Id. at 1049-50. In so holding, the court noted that where the insured could easily receive replacement cost by contracting to complete the work, “there [wa]s no concern . . . that the insureds w[ould] not be made whole.” Id. at 1050. We find that the reasoning articulated in Kane justifies State Farm’s bifurcated payment schedule.
Show more

16 Read more

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

On June 15, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created MDL 2047 in order to consolidate lawsuits brought in several federal district courts in the Gulf Coast and mid-Atlantic regions of the United States by property owners whose homes and other properties were allegedly damaged by KPT Chinese Drywall. Plaintiffs sued the manufacturer of KPT Chinese Drywall and other Knauf entities (collectively, the “Knauf Defendants”), as well as homebuilders, developers, installers, realtors, brokers, suppliers, importers, exporters, and distributors that were involved with KPT Chinese Drywall. The Litigation seeks relief on behalf of persons and entities with claims against the Knauf Defendants arising out of KPT Chinese Drywall.
Show more

12 Read more

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Plaintiff has pointed to evidence that contradicts (or at least appears to be inconsistent with) Defendant's evidence as to whether the Navy did or did not refl[r]

14 Read more

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

This is a declaratory judgment action. The Plaintiffs’ are requesting that this Court declare that a contract dispute between the parties is not subject to arbitration and enter a permanent injunction. The Defendant seeks a declaration that the mandatory arbitration clause in the contract applies. Currently before the Court are the Parties’ Cross Motions for Summary

12 Read more

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

obligations under title II not to discriminate against individuals with HIV seeking emergency medical services. The Department also has a substantial interest in ensuring that recipients of federal financing, such as defendant, do not violate section 504's similar prohibition of disability discrimination. Accordingly, the United States’ significantly protectable interests in ensuring that this case results in clear, consistent, enforceable standards, both substantive and remedial, supports intervention as of right. Cf., e.g., Ceres Gulf v. Cooper, 957 F.2d 1199, 1204 (5 th Cir. 1992) (collecting cases, and finding, in insurer’s suit against employee for reimbursement of advance payments, that the interest of the federal director of the Office of Workers’
Show more

15 Read more

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE CHATTANOOGA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE CHATTANOOGA DIVISION

During the Second August 2013 Hospitalization, Plaintiff Wattenbarger repeatedly contacted Hospital health care providers to request an Interpreter for Plaintiff E.. Sheffield in an att[r]

32 Read more

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Disputes arising from interpretations and application of an insurance policy are matters of law to be determined by the court. McCormack Baron Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. American Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co., 989 S.W.2d 168, 171 (Mo. 1999) (en banc). “Because insurance policies are designed to provide protection, they will be liberally interpreted to grant rather than deny coverage.” Cawthon v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 965 F.Supp. 1262, 1264 (W.D. Mo. 1997); see also Henges Mfg., LLC v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 5 S.W.3d 544, 545 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

15 Read more

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Plaintiffs, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Plaintiffs, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

f. Authentication of Documents: If requested by Settlement Class Counsel, Settling Defendants agree to provide written declarations pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 902(11) and (12) with respect to documents produced by Settling Defendants to Settlement Class Counsel. Settlement Class Counsel agree to use reasonable efforts to minimize the burden to Settling Defendants of any such authentication testimony. In the event that such declarations are not sufficient to secure the admission of the documents, the Settling Defendants agree to, if reasonably necessary to Plaintiffs’ prosecution of the Claims alleged in the Action, make all reasonable efforts to secure the cooperation of and produce at trial and/or deposition, one or more representatives of their choice to testify as to the facts related to authentication of any of Settling Defendants’ Documents produced at any time pursuant to this Settlement Agreement or in the course of the litigation of the Actions. The failure of any current or former employee to make himself or herself available for testimony shall not affect in any way the release of the Released Parties.
Show more

50 Read more

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE DIVISION

35. Plaintiffs acknowledge that both the District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit have upheld the payroll dues deduction prohibition pursuant to Act 10, but assert in good faith that in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus, such prior determinations should be re-visited.

9 Read more

Show all 10000 documents...