Cases

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan June 29, 2018 Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice 155498

15‐1672 United States v. American Express Company UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ______________ August Term, 2015 (Argued: December 17, 2015 Decided: September 26, 2016)

Filed 10/31/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO BRITANI DAVIS, Plaintiff and Respondent, A161961 v. SHIEKH SHOES, LLC, (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-574762) Defendant and App

WESLEY, Circuit Judge: Defendants-Appellants American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (collectively, “American Express” or “Amex”) appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Garaufís, J.) dated February 19, 2015, finding that Amex unreasonably restrained trade in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, by enter

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE AB STABLE VIII LLC, ) ) Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2020-0310-JTL ) MAPS HOTELS AND RESORTS ONE LLC, MIRAE ) ASSET CAPITAL CO., LTD.

In the United States Court of Federal Claims SH SYNERGY, LLC and VCH PARTNERS, LLC, Nos. 22-cv-1466, 22-cv-1468 (consolidated) Plaintiffs, Filed Under Seal: April 21, 2023 v. Publication: April 28, 2023 1 THE UNITED STATES,

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REYNALDO GONZALEZ; THE No. 18-16700 ESTATE OF NOHEMI GONZALEZ; BEATRIZ GONZALEZ, Individually D.C. No. and as Administrator of the Estate 4:16-cv-03282- of Nohemi Gonzalez; JOSE DMR HERNANDEZ; REY GONZALEZ; PAUL GONZALEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the Unit

DECISION NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.149 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.152 ' I. BACKGROUND .152 A. Overview of the GPCC Card Industry.152 B. Competition and Pricing in the GPCC Card Industry.156 C. The Non-Discrimination Provisio

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REYNALDO GONZALEZ; THE No. 18-16700 ESTATE OF NOHEMI GONZALEZ; BEATRIZ GONZALEZ, Individually D.C. No. and as Administrator of the Estate 4:16-cv-03282- of Nohemi Gonzalez; JOSE DMR HERNANDEZ; REY GONZALEZ; PAUL GONZALEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the Unit

02/24/2022 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 8, 2021 Session HCTEC PARTNERS, LLC v. JAMES PRESCOTT CRAWFORD ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Williamson County No. 48722B Michael Binkley, Judge _________________________

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 18-P-1288 Appeals Court ROBERT CHIULLI vs. LIBERT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOSEPH M. HOOD, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court upon the Motion for Summary Judgment made by Plaintiffs Arbor Farms, LLC, Jaswinder Grover, Monica Grover, MacDonald Stables, LLC, Nelson Breeders, LLC, and West Hills Farms, LLC [DE 482].1 David Plummer, Spencer Plummer, and Strategic Opportunity Solutions, LLC, which did business

People of the State of New York, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, againstExxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant. 452044/2018 Plaintiff was represented by the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, 28 Liberty

John Robert Blakey, United States District Judge Plaintiff Uncommon, LLC sued Defendant Spigen, Inc. for using the trademarked term "Capsule" in the names of its cell phone cases, the same product that Plaintiff sells under the Capsule mark. Plaintiff brings claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act,

MEMORANDUM DECISION Robert E. Grossman, United States Bankruptcy Judge 1. Introduction Anthony Labrosciano (the “Plaintiff’), the Chapter 11 Responsible Person of the estate of Signature Apparel Group LLC (the “Debtor”), appointed pursuant to a confirmed liquidation plan, commenced this adversary proceeding under the Bankruptcy Code, New York and Delaware law asserting a variety of claims aris

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1019 JOYCE MCKIVER; DELOIS LEWIS; DAPHNE MCKOY; ALEXANDRIA MCKOY; ANTONIO KEVIN MCKOY; ARCHIE WRIGHT, JR.; TAMMY LLOYD; DEBORAH JOHNSON; ETHEL DAVIS; PRISCILLA DUNHAM, Plaintiffs - Appellees, and DENNIS MCKIVER, JR.; LAJUNE JESSUP; DON LLOY

Mat Marion Gray, III, Ashley E. Bane, Fowler Rodriguez, 400 Poydras Street-30th Floor, New Orleans, LA 70130, Telephone: (504) 523-2600, COUNSEL FOR: Other-Louisiana Surplus Lines Association Robert E. Landry, Kevin Paul Fontenot, Scofield, Gerard, Pohorelsky, Gallaugher & Landry, 901 Lakeshore Drive-Suite 900, Lake Charles, LA 70601, Telephone: (337) 433-9436, COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellant-CITGO Petroleum Corporation K

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2295 Doc: 80 Filed: 07/15/2025 Pg: 1 of 26 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-2295 GROUP HOME ON GIBSON ISLAND, LLC; ASSISTED LIVING WELL COMPASSIONATE CARE 2, LLC, Plaintiffs – Appellants,

OPINION LASTER, Vice Chancellor. Defendant National Financial, LLC (“National”) is a consumer finance company that operates under the trade name Loan Till Payday. In May 2013, National loaned $200 to plaintiff Gloria James (the “Disputed Loan”). National described the loan product as a “Flex Pay Loan.” In substance, it was a one-year, non-amortizing, unsecu

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER James 0. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend and to Reconsider Memorandum Opinion and Order [Doe. 252], filed September 15, 2016 (Doc. 255)(“Motion to Amend”); and (ii) the Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Class Certification, filed September 15, 2016 (Doc. 256)(“Second Motion for Class Certifi