Cases

MEMORANDUM PADOVA, District Judge. Presently before the Court are two Motions filed by Boston Class Plaintiffs. The first Motion seeks to re-transfer these two consolidated cases back to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.1 The second Motion seeks leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint (“FAC”). For the reasons that follow, both Motions are

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL JOYCE LONDON ALEXANDER, United States Magistrate Judge. On December 8, 2003, Plaintiffs, (collectively, “Behrend”), cable subscribers of the *85Defendants, (collectively, “Comcast”), filed an antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging violations o

469 F.Supp.2d 1 (2006) Martha KRISTIAN and James D. Masterman, Plaintiffs v. COMCAST CORPORATION, Comcast Holdings Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc., Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC, and Comcast Mo Group, Inc., Defendants. Jack Rogers and Paul Pinella, Plaintiffs v. Comcast Corporation and AT & T Broadband, Defendants. Nos. Civ.A. 03-12466-EFH, Civ.A. 04-

532 F.Supp.2d 735 (2007) Caroline BEHREND, et al. v. COMCAST CORPORATION, et al. Jack Rogers, et al. v. Comcast Corporation, et al. Martha Kristian, et al. v. Comcast Corporation, et al. Civil Action Nos. 03-6604, 07-218, 07-219. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. July 31, 2007. *736 Daniel H

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. This appeal requires us to evaluate the enforceability of arbitration agreements that Comcast, a cable television provider, invoked against a group of its subscribers, who have sued it for violations of state and federal antitrust laws. Concluding that the arbitration agreements did not have retroactive effect, the district court ruled that the subscribers could not be compelled to arbitrate their antitru

341 F.Supp.2d 42 (2004) Jack ROGERS and Paul Pinalla, Plaintiffs v. COMCAST CORPORATION and AT & T Broadband, Defendants. No. CIV.A.04-10142-EFH. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. October 21, 2004. *43 Alan I. Gilbert, Heins, Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Minneapolis, MN, John P. Zavez, Adkins, Lelston & Zavez,

446 F.3d 25 Martha KRISTIAN and James D. Masterman, Plaintiffs, Appellees,v.COMCAST CORPORATION; Comcast Mo Group, Inc.; Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC; Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc.; Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.; and Comcast Holdings Corporation, Defendants, Appellants, AT & T Broadband, Defendant.Jack Rogers and Paul Pinella, Plaintiffs, Appellees,v.Comcast Corporation and AT & T Broadband, Defendants,

OPINION & ORDER VALERIE CAPRONI, District Judge: This is one of many cases arising out of the collapse of the housing market. This one comes with a twist: homeowners in Detroit who received subprime loans seek to hold a single investment bank responsible under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) for discriminating against African-American borrowers, based on their claim that African-Americans were more

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT W. GETTLEMAN, District Judge. Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint (“complaint”) brings a putative class action on behalf of themselves and other purchasers of chicken jerky dog treats manufactured by defendants Nestle Purina PetCare Company (“Nestle Purina”) and Waggin’ Train LLC (‘Waggin’ Train”), and sold by defendants Wal-Mart Stories, Inc. (Walmart

ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge. Before the court is plaintiff Tysheika Og-buehi’s (“plaintiff’) unopposed motion for an order preliminarily approving a class settlement and provisionally certifying the settlement class. ECF No. 21. The court submitted the motion without oral argument. ECF No. 23. After carefully considering the motion and the applicable law, the court GRANTS plaintiffs

MEMORANDUM OPINION Denying Defendants’ Motion to Tkansfer Venue and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION In 2009, a consortium of four cellular telephone carriers (collectively “Defendants” or the “Carrier Consor

FILED Sep 11, 2018 02:00 PM(CT) TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TENNESSEE WORKERS' COMPENSATION WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS B

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOHN Z. LEE, United States District Judge Defendant William Adkins1 moves for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity from Plaintiff Renee D. Gustafson’s claims that he violated her constitutional rights when he installed covert video surveillance equipment in an office where Plaintiff and other female employees changed clothing. D

08/12/2020 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 12, 2020 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RAMON LUIS HERNANDEZ, JR. Appeal from the Criminal Court for Sumner County No. CR1019-2018 Dee David Gay, Judge ___________________________________

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued May 13, 2021 Decided March 4, 2022 No. 20-1033 LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY AND LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, D/B/A LIPA, PETITIONERS v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE CORPORATION, ET AL., INTERVENORS

Adkins, J. Contractual promises to arbitrate future disputes—in which parties forfeit their right to a trial in court and by a jury— have proven to be controversial. In this appeal we deal with an arbitration clause that seeks to preserve for a lender the right to sue a credit card debtor in small claims court, but insist on arbitration of all other claims relating to the debtor’

MEMORANDUM & ORDER Pamela K. Chen, United States District Judge Plaintiffs Patrick Hughes and Nafise Nina Hodjat (together, “Plaintiffs”) bring this putative class action against Defendants The Ester C Company, NBTY, Inc., and Na-tureSmart LLC (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that Defendants’ labeling of their “Ester-C” vitamin C supplements (the “Products”) as “The Better Vitamin C” is unlawful, d

OPINION BY PANELLA, J. Before us is an appeal from the Appellants, Richard Schulgen and Comcast of Philadelphia II, LLC (Comcast), from a post-trial order denying part of the Appellants’ motion for a new trial. On February 15, 2011, a jury found the Appellants liable for injuries the Appellee, Olga Mirabal,1 suffered in a car accident. After the verdict, the Appellants filed a mot

ADKINS, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent because in my view the Majority erroneously confers vested status on a contingent right, leading it to grant heightened protection to the right of reentry in the event of default. By deeming that a right can be *218vested even though the ability to exercise that

OPINION AND ORDER Loma G. Schofield, United States District Judge Plaintiff Walter Neira Sanchez brings this action under the Fair Labor Standards Acts (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) against his alleged former employers, Defendants New York Kimchi Catering, Corp., Gum Gang Inc. (“Gum Gang”), Un Cha Kim and Sandra Yoo. He moves for class certification on his claims arising under NYLL pursuant