Cases

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MOHAMED AHMED, FOR PUBLICATION April 22, 2021 Plaintiff-Appellee,

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, and Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Allstate” or “the Plaintiffs”) commenced this action against several individuals and entities that are alleged to have perpetuated an ongoing scheme to bill the Plaintiffs under New York State No-Fault Insurance Laws for medical s

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. Presently pending before the Court is: (1) a second motion filed by Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, and Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Allstate” or “the Plaintiffs”) to dismiss and stay the Defendants’ counterclaims (DE 96-97); (2) a motion to dismiss and/or abstain filed by Hisham Elzanaty, Hish

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WEXLER, District Judge. This case was commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau and was thereafter removed pursuant to this court’s diversity jurisdiction. In the removed action, Plaintiff Cambridge Medical, P.C. (“Cambridge”) seeks to recover insurance payments for services rendered that are allegedly due from the Defendant Allstate-related

ACCEPTED 15-25-00021-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/10/2025 4:49 PM CHRISTOPHE

Opinion issued August 10, 2021 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-19-00302-CV ——————————— HICHAM WATANABE, Appellant V. SUMMIT PATH PARTNERS, LLC; HOCINE AITMOHAND; A.

ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Commerce & Industry Insurance Co., 2011 IL App (1st) 093084 Appellate Court ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMERCE Caption AND INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY and UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees (United

387 B.R. 906 (2008) In the Matter of CUA AUTOFINDER, LLC, a/k/a Credit Union Autofinders, Debtor. Mirza Ahmed, Movant, v. CUA Autofinder, LLC, a/k/a Credit Union Autofinders, Respondent. No. 05-50480 RFH. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division. April 29, 2008. *907 Thomas C. James, III, Walter E. Jones,

ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Dennis Norem, M.D., is the current owner of a variable life insurance policy issued by Lincoln Benefit Life Company. Dr. Norem filed this putative class action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated policyholders. Specifically, Dr. Norem claimed that Lincoln Benefit breached the terms of its insurance policies with him and other policyholders

JUSTICE NELSON delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Candice Brilz filed an action in Montana state court purportedly asserting statutory and common law bad-faith claims against Metropolitan General Insurance Company (Metropolitan). Metropolitan removed the action to federal court and filed a motion for summary ju

668 F.Supp.2d 1085 (2009) Roseland McGRATH, Plaintiff v. EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. 2:07 cv 34. United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division. September 23, 2009. Opinion Denying Reconsideration, Certification and Stay January 15, 2010. *1089 Donald W. Wruck, III, Jason

425 F.Supp.2d 876 (2006) GENESIS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Ahmed O. ALFI, et al., Defendants. No. 2:05-CV-0401. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. March 23, 2006. *877 *878 Robert H. Nichols, Jeremy M. Grayem, Schottenstein Zox & Dunn, Columbus, OH, Peter R.

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Syllabus Chief Justice: Justices: Megan K. Cavanagh Brian K. Zahra

725 F.2d 506 BOHEMIA, INC., a corporation, and Employer's Mutual CasualtyCo., a corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Appellees,v.The HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation,Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant. Nos. 82-3666, 82-3667. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 8, 1983.Decided Feb. 7, 1984.

749 F.Supp.2d 94 (2010) STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Herbert RABINER, M.D., Metropolitan Radiological Imaging, P.C., Eric Hagerbrant, Imaging Arts Billing Services of America, Inc., Defendants. No. 10 CV 365(SJ)(RER). United States District Court, E.D. New York. November 4, 2010. *96 Rivkin Radler

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER BLOCK, Senior District Judge. Plaintiffs are Government Employees Insurance Co., GEICO Indemnity Co., GEICO General Insurance Company, and GEICO Casualty Co. (collectively, “GEI-CO”). Defendants are Uptown Health Care Management, Inc. d/b/a New York Neuro and Rehabilitation Center d/b/a East Tremont Medical Center (“East Tremont”); Hisham Elzanaty; Alan Golden-berg; Dr. His

655 F.Supp.2d 212 (2009) STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Semion GRAFMAN, Inessa Abramshik a/k/a Inesa Abramovshchik a/k/a Inessa Rubin,[*] Sergei Khokhlov,[*] Vladimir Nabutovsky,[*] Alec Palmer, Oleg Portnov, Aleksey Pugach, Boris Rabinovich a/k/a Bob Rey, Andrei Schultz,[*] Atlas Medical Equipment, Bethel Equipment, Inc., Grafman Quality Products, Inc. Health World AI, Lt

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DEIN, U.S.M.J. I. INTRODUCTION The plaintiffs, Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Metropolitan”) and The Commerce Insurance Company (“Commerce”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “Carriers”), have brought this action against two chiropractic entities, their present and former princip

516 F.3d 985 (2008) MEGA LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, The, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee, v. Donald D. PIENIOZEK, individually and as administrator of the Estate of Kellie O. Pieniozek, Deceased, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee Cross-Appellant. No. 07-10539. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. February 8, 2008.

AMENDED OPINION SACK, Circuit Judge: This case arises out of a seizure and confiscation of foreign property allegedly in violation of New York State and international law. The plaintiffs, Raphael Bigio, Bahia Bigio, Ferial Salma Bigio and B. Bigio & Co. (collectively, “the Bigios”) seek damages from the defendants, The Coca-Cola C