Cases

Stepanian v Bed, Bath, & Beyond, Inc. (2022 NY Slip Op 04477) Stepanian v Bed, Bath, & Beyond, Inc. 2022 NY Slip Op 04477 Decided on July 8, 2022 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: This decision resolves cross-motions for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs, who are employees at the home-goods retailer Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. ("BBB"), and *125their employer, BBB, the defendant. Plaintiffs bring claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law. The motions t

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jaeger, J.), dated April 7, 2014, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is den

CHEN, Circuit Judge. Inventor Holdings, LLC (IH) sued Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. (BBB) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,381,582 (the ’582 patent) in April 2014. The Supreme Court issued its decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International in June 2014. — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014). BBB thereafter moved for judgment on the pl

OPINION OF THE COURT Kern, J. This action arises from injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiffs when a fire pot and fuel gel purchased from defendant suddenly combusted and exploded. The product at issue is a combination of a ceramic pot, called the “FireBurners” Pot, with a stainless steel fuel reservoir at its

MEMORANDUM OPINION PETER J. MESSITTE, District Judge. Rebecca and Michael Hart have sued Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. (“BBB”) for injuries sustained as a result of their *839Mends’ purchase and use of a product called “Firelites.” BBB has m turn sued Losorea Packaging, Inc. (“Losorea”) for common law indemnification and contribution,

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This Cause having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and Adjudged: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

MEMORANDUM GREGORY M. SLEET, District Judge I. INTRODUCTIÓN The plaintiff Inventor Holdings, LLC (“Inventor Holdings”) initiated patent infringement lawsuits against a number of defendants, including the above-captioned defendant Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (“Bed Bath & Beyond”). Inventor Holdings alleges that Bed Bath & Beyond infringes U.S. Patent No.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to vacate and remand the district court’s dismissal of both the design patent claim and the Lanham Act § 43(a) claim in this case. The district court dismissed the design patent count on the ground that the plaintiffs amended complaint failed to provide “any a

PER CURIAM. ORDER This is an appeal of an order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. On December 29, 2010, the district court ordered that all claims of the complaint should be dismissed. For the claim of patent infringement in count 1, the dismissal was without prejudice and the plaintiffs were allowed until January 19, 2011 to replead the claim against Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.,

Memorandum Opinion and Order LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, District Judge. Plaintiff, Worldwide Home Products, Inc. (“Plaintiff’), moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter, amend, vacate, or set aside the September 30, 2013, Memorandum Opinion and Order (the “Order”) and Clerk’s Judgment entered by the Court in favor of Defendants, Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc. and Cohesion Product

502 F.Supp.2d 528 (2007) Jose VILLASANA, Plaintiff, v. BED BATH & BEYOND, INC., Defendant. No. EP-07-CV-009-PRM. United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division. February 26, 2007. George Paul Andritsos, Attorney at Law, El Paso, TX, for Plaintiff. Donna K. McElroy, Cox Smith Matthews Incorporated, San Antonio, TX, Rosemary M. Marin, Scott, Hul

186 P.3d 952 (2008) 2008 OK 47 BED BATH & BEYOND, INC., and Fidelity Guaranty Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Rebecca Ann BONAT and the Workers' Compensation Court, Respondents. No. 104,284. Supreme Court of Oklahoma. May 13, 2008. As Corrected May 19, 2008. Todd A. Estes, Pierce, Couch, Hendrickson, Baysinger & Gr

PER CURIAM: * Tunde A. Ajao appeals an adverse summary judgment against his race-discrimination and retaliation claims. AFFIRMED. I. Ajao, whose national origin is Nigerian, is a black employee of Bed Bath and Beyond (BB & B). He was hired as a department manager for its Meyerland, Texas, store on 27 September 1999, after interviewing with, among others

245 S.W.3d 591 (2007) Rafael URISTA, Appellant, v. BED, BATH, & BEYOND, INC., Appellee. No. 01-02-00150-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.). October 18, 2007. Rehearing Overruled August 30, 2007. *594 Jonathan Scott Stoger, Thomas N. Thurlow, Thurlow & Associates, Houston, for appellant.

</

Justice GREEN delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice HECHT, Justice O’NEILL, Justice WAINWRIGHT, Justice BRISTER, Justice JOHNSON and Justice WILLETT joined. In this case we decide whether an unavoidable accident instruction given to the jury caused reversible error and requires a new trial. We conclude that because the record does not support a findin

508 F.Supp.2d 1264 (2007) Jessica P. THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BED BATH & BEYOND, INC., Defendant. Civil Action File No. 1:05-CV-2963-TWT. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. May 17, 2007. *1265 *1266 Robin Frazer Clark, Clark Goldner, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for

In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-07-316-CV IN RE BED BATH & BEYOND, INC. RELATOR