Cases

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION HILLMAN, District Judge. Background The Plaintiff Lease America Org. Inc.(“Lease America”) sells electronic juke boxes. Defendants Rowe International Corporation (“Rowe”) and AMI Entertainment Network, Inc. (“AMI”) manufacture jukeboxes. Defendant Amusement and *87Music Operators Assoc

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Evergreen Partnering Group, Inc. (“Evergreen”) appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissing its Second Amended Complaint (“complaint”). The complaint alleges that defendants-appellees, polystyrene food service packaging manufacturers and two trade associations, refused in concert to dea

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT STEARNS, District Judge. Plaintiff Evergreen Partnering Group (Evergreen) alleges that it was the victim of a conspiracy by defendants Pactiv Corp., Genpak, LLC, Dolco Packaging Corp., Solo Cup Company, Dart Container Corp. (collectively the producer defendants), and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) to freeze its close

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT STEARNS, District Judge. In this antitrust case, plaintiff Evergreen Partnering Group, Inc., seeks to prove that its business failed because of a conspiracy orchestrated by the defendant polystyrene converters and their trade association, the American Chemistry Council. This court granted a motion to dismiss Evergreen’s Complaint on June 7, 201

JUSTICE GOLDBERG delivered the opinion of the court: Jordan Tark (plaintiff) brought this action against Shearson/American Express, Inc. (defendant) for negligent misrepresentation. A jury found for plaintiff and awarded him $65,000. Defendant’s post-trial motion was denied. Defendant appeals. Defendant is a securities broker-dealer and commodity futur

MEMORANDUM OPINION COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge Plaintiffs filed suit on July 23, 2015, against the District of Columbia (“the District”) as well as Hoffman-Madison Waterfront, LLC (“HMW”) and Wharf Horizontal REIT Leaseholder, LLC (“WHRL”), collectively, the “Developer Defendants.” Plaintiffs allege that the Developer Defendants violate

March 30, 2014 [## 10, 46] MEMORANDUM OPINION RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge Nine Medicaid recipients (“plaintiffs”) bring this suit against the District of Co *148 lumbia, the Mayor of D.C., and the Director of D.C.’s Departm

593 F.Supp. 1443 (1984) WM. T. THOMPSON CO., a Missouri corporation, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, dba GNC and General Nutrition Center, Inc., a subsidiary of General Nutrition Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendants. GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. WM. T. THOMPSON CO., a Missouri corporation, Defendant. Nos. CV 78-3206-CHH,

OPINION OF THE COURT Abdtjs-Salaam, J. These two cases call upon us to assess the continued vitality of the rule promulgated in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M. (77 NY2d 651 [1991])—namely that, in an unmarried couple, a partner without a biological or adoptive relation to a child is not that child’s “parent” for purposes of standing to seek custody or visitation under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a),

OPINION OF THE COURT Abdtjs-Salaam, J. These two cases call upon us to assess the continued vitality of the rule promulgated in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M. (77 NY2d 651 [1991])—namely that, in an unmarried couple, a partner without a biological or adoptive relation to a child is not that child’s “parent” for purposes of standing to seek custody or visitation under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a),

ORDER RE MONETARY SANCTIONS CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, District Judge. The orders of the Honorable Parks Still-well, Special Master (the “Special Master”), imposing monetary sanctions upon General Nutrition Corporation, Inc. and General Nutrition Center, Inc. (collectively “GNC”) are now before the Court. The court has considered the points and authorities submitted by the parties and the relevant materials on

749 F.Supp.2d 1052 (2010) John TRUE and Gonzalo Delgado, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. EDCV 07-0287-VAP (OPx). United States District Court, C.D. California. February 26, 2010. *1057 Denise Davis Schwartzman, Nicholas E. Chimicles, Ch

542 F.2d 1076 1976-2 Trade Cases 61,102 FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE CORPORATION and McDonald'sSystems of California, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.SAN FRANCISCO LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF CULINARYWORKERS et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 73-2727. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. Sept. 17, 1976.Rehearing

107 Cal.Rptr.2d 456 (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 451 Daniel R. SOLIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP, Defendant and Respondent, and Edith Reich et al., Interveners and Respondents. No. B140076. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five. May 24, 2001. Review Denied August 8, 2001.

351 F.Supp. 1153 (1972) INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL TELEPHONE & ELECTRONICS CORPORATION and Hawaiian Telephone Company, Defendants. Civ. No. 2754. United States District Court, D. Hawaii. July 14, 1972. *1154 *1155

OPINION POLLACK, District Judge. This is a plenary suit instituted by bankruptcy trustees and a principal stockholder and former officer of the bankrupts to recover damages for alleged antitrust and common law violations. The case was assigned to me for all purposes under Rule 2 of the General Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action was commenced on S

*379ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT HUAN ZOU’S MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. Plaintiffs in this certified wage and hour class action are current and former massage therapists that have been classified as ind

345 B.R. 60 (2006) In re IDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Debtor. No. 04-17881(PCB). United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York. May 31, 2006. *61 Marilyn Simon & Associates, Marilyn Simon, Esq. Of Counsel, New York, NY, for Debtor. Platzer, Swergold, Karlin, Levine, Goldberg & Jaslow, LLP, Sherri D. Lydell, Esq., Scott

933 F.Supp. 918 (1996) SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff, v. HIGH-LINE MEDICAL INSTRUMENTS, CO., et al., Defendants. No. CV 95-6491 ABC (SHx). United States District Court, C.D. California. July 16, 1996. *919 *920 *921 *922</

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SAMVIT RAMADURGAM, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2024-0057-PAF ) DESTINY XYZ INC., SOHAIL ) PRASAD, ARCHIT KUMAR, and ) CARLOS LICONA, ) )