Cases

423 F.Supp.2d 951 (2006) Linda HARDY and Antoine Belle, Plaintiff, v. GMRI, INC., d/b/a Red Lobster, Defendant. No. 3:05-CV-00002. United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, Davenport Division. March 24, 2006. *952 T Todd Becker, Tom Riley Law Firm, Cedar Rapids, for Antoine Belle, Plaintiff. Samuel C. Anderson, Swisher &

ORDER ORINDA D. EVANS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This civil suit is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 57]. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED. I. Undisputed Facts The following facts are undisputed unless stated otherwise. GMRI is a Florida corporation which is a subsidiary of Dar-den Restaurants. Defendant is a

190 F.Supp.2d 1017 (2002) Daniel J. ZINK, Jr., individually, Cynthia Zink, individually, Heather A.P. Zink and Aaron D. Zink, by and through their Conservator, Cynthia Zink, Plaintiffs, v. GMRI, INC., a Florida corporation d/b/a Red Lobster, Tamara Enders, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, a Massachusetts corporation, individually and severally, Defendants. No. 01-CV-73016-DT. United States Distric

MEMORANDUM OPINION SIMPSON, Chief Judge. Eastern Parkway is a meandering, urban four-lane street in the City of Louisville, with a speed limit of 35 miles per hour.1 On the evening of November 11, 1996, Gary Dubord, then two months from his twenty-first birthday, was en route to a local nightclub with his friend, Scott Lawler. Driving drunk, Dubord attained speeds of bet

10 F.Supp.2d 245 (1998) Jeffrey DeFILIPPO, Plaintiff, v. GMRI, INC., d/b/a Red Lobster, Greg Cohen & Jeffrey Rothenberg, Defendants. No. 97 Cv. 0611. United States District Court, E.D. New York. June 30, 1998. *246 Andrew Schatkin, Westbury, NY, for Plaintiff. Bryan A. McKenna, Jacob, Medinger & Finnegan, New York

952 F.Supp. 1224 (1997) Sandra TERWILLIGER, Plaintiff, v. GMRI, INC., a Florida corporation, d/b/a The Olive Garden Restaurant, Defendant. Civil Action No. 95-40401. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. February 10, 1997. *1225 Charles W. Palmer, Robb, Messing, Palmer & Dignan PC, Taylor, MI, for Sa

OPINION ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge. FACTS By letter dated March 20, 1995, plaintiff GMRI, Inc., submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, to defendant the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) asking for “the entire file on the [Catherine Casanova] charge which is currently i

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER L. PATRICK AULD, United States Magistrate Judge. This case comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration for Plaintiffs Adams, Whitfield, and Kraemer and to Stay Proceedings (Docket Entry 29) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Certification as a Collective Action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (Docket Entry 37).1

ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [Docs. 25, 26, 27, and 28]; the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation regarding the disposition of those motions [Doc. 44]; and Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation. [Doc. 45]. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

ORDER G. MURRAY SNOW, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Defendant Swissport Fueling, Inc.’s (“Swissport”) Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 239.) Also pending are the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (the “EEOC”) Motion to Strike (Doc. 279) and Motion for Leave to File Surreply (Doc. 280). For the reasons discussed below, Swissport’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part an

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Stay Action and Compel Arbitration (the “Motion”). (ECF No. 7.) For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion. I. Background This case arises out of a contractual d

RULING ON EEOC’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND PROPOSED PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS’ (PPIs’) MOTION TO INTERVENE WALTERS, United States Magistrate Judge. The above motions [3, 4] are before the Court. Von Maur resists the motion to consolidate, and resists the motion to intervene in part. The motions are decided on the motion papers. LR 7.1.c. The PPIs have sued Von Maur in Ward, et al. v. Von

207 F.Supp.2d 376 (2002) Jeanne BIRCH, Plaintiff v. THE PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, INC., Defendant Civil No. AMD 02-308. United States District Court, D. Maryland. May 2, 2002. *377 Beth Pepper, Law Office, Baltimore, MD, for plaintiff. Henry Morris, Jr., Anne M. Hamilton, Savalle C. Sims, Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin and Kahn PLL

JUSTICE HARTMAN delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiffs Duncan Publishing and Jon A. Duncan (sometimes collectively Duncan) filed a three-count complaint against defendant City of Chicago (City), essentially seeking to enjoin the City from withholding certain public records from them for inspection and copy

Fifth Division March 31, 1999 1-97-3271 DUNCAN PUBLISHING, INC., an Illinois ) Appeal from the corporation, and JON A. DUNCAN, ) Circuit Court of individually, ) Cook County. )

Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Relator-appellant, Sherwood Lacroix, appeals the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals denying his request for a writ of mandamus that would require respondent-appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio to enter an order awarding him compensation for permanent total disability. {¶ 2} For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History

McGEE, Chief Judge. This case arises out of a collision that occurred on 9 September 2016 around 12:30 p.m. in Wake Forest, North Carolina. Ricky Lee Chalk ("Plaintiff") turned his Harley Davidson motorcycle southward down Wake Drive - a wide, unmarked, two-lane road with a Mellow Mushroom pizza restaurant on the left. Giuliana Braakman ("Defendant") was in her Toyota facing south on Wake Drive and turned left toward the Mellow Mush

ORDER SOLOMON OLIVER, JR., CHIEF JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Currently pending before the court is Plaintiff James Weikamp’s (“Plaintiff’) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion for Fees”) (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff maintains that he is entitled to an award of fees and costs against Defendant United States Department of the Navy (“Navy” or “Defendant”) in the amount of $61,352.18. For the followi

Defendants appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs totaling $187,500. For the reasons below, we vacate the trial court's judgment and remand for further proceedings after appointment of a proper guardian for defendant Mason. The evidence before the trial tended to show that defendant Mason was, on the date this action was filed, approximately 90 years old and resided in a nursing facility for the elderly in Macon County. On 11 July 2002, th

[Cite as State ex rel. Lacroix v. Indus. Comm., 2013-Ohio-4881.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio ex rel. Sherwood Lacroix, : Relator, : No. 12AP-931 v. :