Cases

105 Cal.Rptr.2d 652 (2002) 88 Cal.App.4th 52 Adolphus Ray MORGAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The REGENTS OF The UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. No. A087591. Court of Appeal, First District, Division Two. November 30, 2000. *656 Dorothy Davis Guillory, San Leandro, CA, for Appellant.

Gerard E. Lynch, Circuit Judge: This case is one of dozens seeking to recover for harm allegedly resulting from a conspiracy among major banks to manipulate the London Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR"), a set of benchmark interest rates that affect financial transactions worth trillions of dollars. Plaintiffs-Appellants Charles Schwab Corporation, Charles Schwab Bank, N.A., Charles Sch

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER COSBEY, United States Magistrate Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court1 on two motions for summary judgment filed on May 15,1998; the first by Defendant the Board of Trustees of Indiana University (“the University”), and the second by Defendant Daniel Cohen (“Cohen”).2 On

988 F.Supp. 127 (1997) Gregory F. DANIEL, M.D., et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN BOARD OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, et al., Defendants. No. 90-CV-1086A. United States District Court, W.D. New York. November 19, 1997. *128 *129 *130 *1

478 F.Supp. 889 (1979) ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. In re JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Civ. A. Nos. 74-2451, 74-3247 and M.D.L. No. 189. United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. June 6, 1979.

DENNIS JACOBS, Circuit Judge: Appellants purchased financial instruments, mainly issued by the defendant banks, that carried a rate of return indexed to. the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), which approximates the average rate at which a group of designated banks can borrow money. Appellees, 16 of the world’s largest banks (“the Banks”), were on the panel of banks that determined LIBOR each business day based, in par

ACCEPTED 03-16-00761-CV 1380026

300 F.Supp.2d 119 (2004) Paul JUNG, M.D., et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLEGES, et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A.02-0873 PLF. United States District Court, District of Columbia. February 11, 2004. *120 *121 *122

953 F.2d 807 139 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2118, 60 USLW 2446,120 Lab.Cas. P 56,772,7 IER Cases 92, 1993 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 30,008 Russell BOLDEN, Appellant in No. 90-1478v.SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,Appellant in 90-1435,v.TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF PHILADELPHIA, LOCAL 234,TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA AFL/CIO,Appellee/Cross-Appellant. Nos. 9

Opinion WERDEGAR, J. The common law theory of continuous accrual posits that a cause of action challenging a recurring wrong may accrue not once but each time a new wrong is committed. We consider whether the theory can apply to actions under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.; hereafter UCL) and, if so, whether it applies he

MEMORANDUM BLAKE, District Judge. On June 21, 2002, a consolidated and renewed motion for remand filed in the Pinney, Farina, Gilliam, Gimpelson, and Naquin actions in this multidistrict litigation was denied.1 I held that federal question jurisdiction supported removal based on the substantial federal question doctrine. In re Wireless Tel. Radio

371 F.Supp.2d 89 (2005) Jose J. PASTOR-GINORIO, Defendant v. R & G MORTGAGE CORPORATION, INC., Defendant. Civil No. 04-2372(DRD). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. June 4, 2005. *90 Jose J. Pastor-Ginorio, Guaynabo, PR, Pro Se. Sonia B. Alfaro-De-La-Vega, San Juan, PR, for Defendant. AMENDED

9 F.Supp.2d 916 (1998) Hortense SINGER, Plaintiff, v. BULK PETROLEUM CORP., Defendant. No. 97 C 7789. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. June 11, 1998. *917 *918 Robin Reed Lunn, Michael James Hughes, Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg, Chicago, IL, Kenneth A. Bohnert, Co

494 F.Supp.2d 161 (2007) TRI-COUNTY MOTORS, INC., Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 04-cv-0835-ENV-KAM. United States District Court, E.D. New York. July 3, 2007. *162 *163 *164 *165 Jeffrey

686 F.Supp.2d 429 (2010) LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., Plaintiff, v. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION; AU Optronics Corporation America; Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation; and Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., Defendants. AU Optronics Corporation, Plaintiff, v. LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc. Civil Action Nos. 06-726-JJF, 07-357-JJF. United States District Court, D. Delaware.</

608 F.Supp.2d 1166 (2009) SUN MICROSYSTEMS INC., Plaintiff, v. HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., Defendants. No. C 06-1665 PJH. United States District Court, N.D. California. March 31, 2009. *1169 Christine Elaine Cwiertny, Daniel Allen Sasse, Theresa C. Lopez, Crowell & Moring LLP, Irvine, CA, David Daniel Cross, Jerome A. M

949 F.Supp. 737 (1996) Jerry BUCKLEY, Plaintiff, v. GALLO SALES COMPANY, Defendant. No. C96-2383 TEH. United States District Court, N.D. California. November 6, 1996. *738 *739 Todd M. Schneider, Schneider & McCormac, San Mateo, CA, for Plaintiff. Nick C. Geannacopulos, Claudia Bult

124 Ill.2d 435 (1988) 530 N.E.2d 439 DONALDSON, LUFKIN & JENRETTE FUTURES, INC., Appellee, v. EDWIN C. BARR et al. (The Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Appellant). No. 64821. Supreme Court of Illinois. Opinion filed October 20, 1988. *436 *437 Kirkland &

984 F.Supp. 576 (1997) Rodney COLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, Defendant. Civil Action No. H-96-2243. United States District Court, S.D. Texas. November 6, 1997. John W. Donovan, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff. L. Chapman Smith, Baker and Botts, Houston, TX, for Defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CRONE, United States

SUTTLE, District Judge. International Harvester 1 appeals from a judgment entered against it in a negligence action brought by Rex Crim, an International Harvester dealer from Henderson, Texas. In January of 1977, Crim traveled to Phoenix, Arizona, at the request and expense of International Harvester for a demonstratio