Top PDF Case 2:07-cv JKG Document 388 Filed 03/24/11 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:07-cv JKG Document 388 Filed 03/24/11 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:07-cv JKG Document 388 Filed 03/24/11 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Ceridian’s untimely joinder in the motions to dismiss filed by the other defendants, except as expressly joined in Ceridian’s brief filed May 7, 2010, and I grant the motion to the extent it seeks to strike four documents offered by Ceridian for my consideration of Ceridian’s motion to dismiss. I deny the motion to the extent it seeks to strike discussion in response to plaintiffs’ second notice of supplemental authority.

5 Read more

Case 2:14-cv ER Document 21 Filed 09/08/14 Page 1 of 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:14-cv ER Document 21 Filed 09/08/14 Page 1 of 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

But the two would soon learn how wrong they were. On May 7, 2014, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office began civil-forfeiture proceedings against the Sourovelises’ home even though there was no suggestion that either Mr. or Mrs. Sourovelis had anything to do with the drug crimes. (Sourovelis Decl., ¶ 7 & Ex. 3.) Indeed, neither had ever been in trouble with the law before. As appears to be its standard operating procedure, the District Attorney’s Office also applied for a “seize and seal” order at the same time it filed the forfeiture petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order. (Sourovelis Decl., Exs. 3-6.) The “seize and seal” application merely recounted the circumstances surrounding the arrest; it did not describe why the temporary restraining order would be insufficient or why letting the Sourovelises explain why they should not be thrown out of their home would threaten the government’s interests. (Sourovelis Decl., Ex. 4.) The same day, both the restraining order and the “seize and seal” order were entered. (Sourovelis Decl., Exs. 5-6.)
Show more

24 Read more

Case 2:14-cv JTM Document 17 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO.

Case 2:14-cv JTM Document 17 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO.

A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement," but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.

7 Read more

Case 2:11-cv TJS Document 49 Filed 04/25/12 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:11-cv TJS Document 49 Filed 04/25/12 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Consequently, to invoke res ipsa loquitur under Pennsylvania law, the Mertzigs must present expert testimony demonstrating that the event is the kind which does not occur in the absence of negligence, the evidence sufficiently eliminates other possible causes, and the indicated negligence is within the scope of the defendant’s duty to the plaintiff. See Quinby, 907 A.2d at 1071 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 328D). Assuming that the Mertzigs can demonstrate that a staph infection does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, they must still sufficiently eliminate other causes, including the conduct of third persons, to invoke res ipsa loquitur. Quinby, 907 A.2d at 1072 (quoting Restatement (Second) Torts § 328D(1)(b)). The critical inquiry is whether a particular defendant caused the injury. Id. at 1072-73 (citations omitted). If the injury is fairly attributable to an alternate cause, the plaintiff may not proceed under res ipsa loquitur. MacNutt v. Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc., 932 A.2d 980, 987 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (en banc) (quotations omitted).
Show more

13 Read more

Case 4:07-cv Document 1 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

Case 4:07-cv Document 1 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

37. On February 24, 2004, APGI sent a letter to a customer regarding the creation of a “friendly lien.” The letter provided detailed instructions for filing the “friendly lien” and enclosed all of the necessary documents to create the “friendly lien,” in this case a “friendly mortgage.” On March 11, 2004, APGI’s customer filed the “friendly mortgage” for the customer’s property in Gwinnett, Georgia.

12 Read more

Case 2:07-cv JWL-JPO Document 25 Filed 04/03/07 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS AT KANSAS CITY

Case 2:07-cv JWL-JPO Document 25 Filed 04/03/07 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS AT KANSAS CITY

On this 2nd day of March, 2007, this matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint and specifically Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support Thereof. Plaintiffs Stephen Wiles, M.D. and Lasik-1 of Kansas, P.A. (formerly known as “LasikPlus of Kansas, P.A.”) appeared through Stephen R. Miller of the Miller Law Firm, P.C. Defendant LCA-Vision, Inc. (“LCA”) appears through William Hanna of Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP.

5 Read more

Case 3:12-cv Document 1 Filed 03/08/12 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Case 3:12-cv Document 1 Filed 03/08/12 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

49. By letter dated November 30, 2011, ICE acknowledged receipt of Plaintiffs’ Request and sought a 10-day extension of the 20-day deadline to respond. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B). 50. By separate letter dated November 30, 2011, ICE denied Plaintiffs’ fee waiver request in its entirety, in a boilerplate statement devoid of legal analysis or logical reasoning. Instead of providing any reasons for the denial, ICE merely listed the six factors for determining whether the applicable legal standard for a fee waiver has been met, as set forth in 6 C.F.R. § 5.11(k), and stated, without elaboration, that Plaintiffs’ Request failed to meet two of those factors. A copy of ICE’s letter is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 2.
Show more

14 Read more

Case 3:10-cv BR Document 69 Filed 05/03/11 Page 1 of 16 Page ID#: 955 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Case 3:10-cv BR Document 69 Filed 05/03/11 Page 1 of 16 Page ID#: 955 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

After the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ibrahim, a district court in Pennsylvania faced similar questions in Scherfen v. DHS, 08-CV-1554, 2010 WL 456784 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2010). Among other things, the plaintiffs in Scherfen sought removal of their names from a No Fly List. The district court, inter alia, held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider the case because the final DHS TRIP determination letters were final orders of TSA.

16 Read more

Case 2:11-cv CJB-KWR Document 549 Filed 07/29/15 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO:

Case 2:11-cv CJB-KWR Document 549 Filed 07/29/15 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO:

office.” (Rec. Doc. 511-3, p. 1) Defendants argue that Dr. Hammar did not opine that Vedros was exposed to asbestos while she worked in the office at Avondale. Dr. Hammar’s Opinion No. 23 states that Vedros’s mesothelioma was caused by her “total and cumulative exposure to asbestos[, which] was primarily due to bystander exposure from her father.” (Rec. Doc. 511-2, p. 6) In other words, Hammar opined that Vedros’s bystander exposure was her primary exposure, though not her only exposure. Furthermore, Hammar Opinion No. 2 states that Vedros worked at Avondale between 1960 and 1963, and Hammar Opinion No. 52 opines that “occupational and bystander exposures . . . have the ability to contribute to the causation of mesothelioma.” (Rec. Doc. 511-2, pp. 5, 11) While this may be sufficient to create an inference that Dr. Hammar opined that Vedros had some occupational exposure, Dr. Hammar’s deposition testimony provides further clarification. Dr. Hammar testified that it is correct to say that Vedros was “exposed to asbestos directly from Avondale shipyards, and . . . that that [exposure] would have . . . been a significant contributing factor.” (Rec. Doc. 533-4, pp. 14-15)
Show more

18 Read more

CASE 0:08-cv PJS-JJG Document 70 Filed 11/08/10 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

CASE 0:08-cv PJS-JJG Document 70 Filed 11/08/10 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Schultz Foods is a large corporation that generates tens of millions of dollars in annual sales, see Mohrman Decl. at Ex. 2 [Docket No. 37], and that, at the time it opened its account and consented to the deposit agreement, had a longstanding business relationship with Wachovia. Schultz Foods is not remotely like a “sheep keeping company with wolves.” K&C, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 263 A.2d 390, 393 (Pa. 1970). Under Pennsylvania law, the Court cannot find that the deposit agreement was a contract of adhesion.

5 Read more

Case 2:12-cv JRG Document 1 Filed 11/01/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Case 2:12-cv JRG Document 1 Filed 11/01/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

5. Defendant Anthony Betterton, Sheriff of Upshur County, is responsible for the policies, procedures, and operation of the Upshur County Jail. All his acts and omissions complained of herein were under color of state law. Betterton is the final policymaker for Upshur County. He is sued in his official capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief, and in his individual capacity for nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages. He can be served with process at 405 North Titus, Gilmer, TX 75644. Service is requested.

8 Read more

Case 2:07-cv LP Document 16 Filed 02/17/09 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:07-cv LP Document 16 Filed 02/17/09 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

evidence includes the facts that she did not stay at any other locations during her visit to the United States, and she slept and took her meals at the Donadzes. On the other hand, there is evidence that her visit was just that–a temporary visit with no “measure of permanency.” See Wall Rose , 939 A.2d at 965 (citing Weryha, 931 A.2d at 744). There are no indications that Ms. Naskidashvili took any other steps to hold out the Donadze house as her residence–she did not receive mail there, use the address as her own on any kind of documentation, or try to have her pension transferred there. Additionally, there is also no dispute that Ms. Naskidashvili had an absolute impediment to staying with her children in their home for an indefinite period of time–the expiration of her visa at the end of the six-month period.
Show more

11 Read more

Case 2:14-cv RK Document 56 Filed 05/24/16 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:14-cv RK Document 56 Filed 05/24/16 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Presently pending before the Court is the Complaint to Confirm FINRA Arbitration Award filed by Plaintiff, Norman Hunsinger (“Hunsinger”), against Defendant, Brian P. Carr (“Carr”). 1 On April 29, 2016, we conducted an evidentiary hearing where arguments and testimony were presented by both parties regarding the specific issue of whether the FINRA Arbitration Panel had jurisdiction over their dispute. Arguing that he did not enter into an arbitration agreement with Hunsinger, Carr asserts that Hunsinger was not a “customer” as defined by FINRA, which requires that the instant dispute be arbitrated under FINRA’s rules. Therefore, Carr asserts that the FINRA Arbitration Panel lacked jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute. Based upon the testimony during the evidentiary hearing, as well as consideration of all of the parties’ filings and all of the proceedings conducted in this action, we find that the FINRA
Show more

13 Read more

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

46. On January 11, 2015, Mr. Benson exercised his retained power to reacquire assets from the 2009 Trusts, the 2012 Trusts, and the GRATs by executing a Notice by Grantor to Trustee to Exchange Assets of the Trusts and sending the notice to Defendant Rosenthal. (See Exhibit 19, Notice by Grantor to Trustee to Exchange Assets of the Trusts (the "Notice of Exchange")). Mr. Benson's Notice of Exchange effected the immediate transfer of the reacquired trust assets to Mr. Benson, and legally bound him to deliver assets of equivalent value to the Trustee. The Notice of Exchange specified an effective date of the exchange as January 1, 2015. Attached to the Notice of Exchange executed by Mr. Benson was a schedule of preliminary values of all of the assets reacquired by Mr. Benson on that date, which valuations were based on the most recent valuations of the assets available to Mr. Benson. The form of promissory notes attached to the Notice of Exchange contained a valuation adjustment clause identical to the valuation adjustment clauses employed by Defendant Rosenthal in connection with the promissory notes previously tendered to Mr. Benson, as described in paragraphs 42 through 44 above, when Defendant Rosenthal acquired assets for the trusts from Mr. Benson.
Show more

21 Read more

Case 2:05-cv MAM Document 42 Filed 07/19/06 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:05-cv MAM Document 42 Filed 07/19/06 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Horticultural Supply, Inc. v. Scotts Co., No. 04-5182, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36015 (E.D. Pa. June 1, 2006) which denied a motion to dismiss a Section 1 claim and cited Fuentes. However, the Court did not apply Fuentes as a general principle. The Court noted that the complaint at issue in U.S. Horticultural Supply, in addition to identifying the participants, purpose and motive of the conspiracy, went into some detail about how the alleged co-conspirators accomplished and carried out their agreement. U.S. Horticultrual Supply, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36015 at *7-9. LEXIS 14433 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 5, 2000), also involved a Section 1 claim where the plaintiffs provided some background for their price fixing conspiracy allegations by referencing coordinated price increases by the defendants. In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14433 at *19-20.
Show more

22 Read more

Case 2:19-cr DWA Document 97 Filed 09/24/20 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:19-cr DWA Document 97 Filed 09/24/20 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

i. Biological testing case file: Please provide a complete copy of the case file including all records made by each laboratory in connection with biological testing in the instant case, including biological screening, serological testing, presumptive testing, microscopy and DNA testing. Please provide documentation of any DNA profile uploaded to a local, state or national DNA database (LDIS, SDIS or NDIS). Please provide photographic quality copies of all photographs in the original case file (including photographs of evidence). Electronic copies of photographs are acceptable.
Show more

6 Read more

Case 4:11-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/10/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Case 4:11-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/10/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

42. On information and belief, Defendants Quadrem International, Quadrem International Holdings and Quadrem Netherlands (collectively “Quadrem”) has been and now is directly infringing and/or indirectly infringing by way of inducing infringement and/or contributing to the infringement of the ‘107 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, providing, for chemical supplier transactions, one or more business-to-business electronic clearinghouse systems covered by one or more claims of the ‘107 Patent, and inducing, aiding and abetting its trading partners to use the one or more unauthorized business-to-business electronic clearinghouse systems covered by one or more claims of the ‘107 Patent, to the injury of SCC. It is further alleged that Defendant Quadrem’s business-to-business electronic clearinghouse systems are especially made or especially adapted in a way that infringes the ‘107 Patent, and which does not have a substantial non-infringing use. Defendant Quadrem is thus liable for infringement of the ‘107 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b) and/or (c).
Show more

14 Read more

Case 1:15-cv GAO Document 1 Filed 07/14/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Civ. A. No.

Case 1:15-cv GAO Document 1 Filed 07/14/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Civ. A. No.

14. WRQ published Reflection under various names and in various versions, and the Hospital purchased licenses according to its needs. For example, WRQ published (and the Hospital bought licenses for) “Reflection 2 Macintosh,” “Reflection for Dos,” “Reflection for IBM,” “Reflection for Multi-Host Enterprise Standard Edition,” “Reflection for Regis Graphics,” “Reflection for UNIX,” and “Reflection Suite for TCP.” For each of these products, WRQ would publish updates and issue new releases under new version numbers. For example, the Hospital purchased licenses for Reflection for UNIX versions 5.20, 5.21, 6.00, 7.00, and 10.00.
Show more

13 Read more

Case 1:12-cv BJR Document 40 Filed 03/04/15 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:12-cv BJR Document 40 Filed 03/04/15 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Finally, the Court is not persuaded that the Defendants’ investigation is too vague to support an Exemption 7(A) withholding. EPIC attempts to liken the investigation in the instant case with that at issue in Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 746 F.3d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (hereinafter, CREW v. Dep’t of Justice). Pl.’s Supp’l Opp’n at 6. CREW concerned the FBI’s investigation into the activities of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Several people were convicted, including two senior aides to Tom DeLay, the former House of Representatives Majority Leader. Id. at 1087. The FBI never acknowledged whether Tom DeLay was the target of their investigation but, in August 2010, DeLay announced that the Department of Justice would not bring criminal charges against him. Id. After this
Show more

22 Read more

Case 2:16-cv Document 2-1 Filed 07/08/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 2:16-cv Document 2-1 Filed 07/08/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Plaintiff improperly filed her public Complaint with the Superior Court, as opposed to filing it with the AAA and adhering to her contractually-required confidentiality obligation, so that her counsel could tar Mr. Ailes’s reputation publicly, try this case in the media press, and coerce him to settle. Plaintiff’s counsel has been on a non-stop tour of major media outlets ever since, making one false and defamatory statement after another: articles quoting the Complaint

8 Read more

Show all 10000 documents...

Related subjects