Cases

OPINION AND ORDER RONNIE ABRAMS, District Judge. Three motions are currently pending before the Court in these consolidated cases: (1) Defendants’ motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 6.8, (2) Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file amended complaints to add additional works-at-issue, and (3) Defendants’ motion for certification for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CAPITOL SERVICES MANAGEMENT INC., Plaintiff, v. Civ. Action No. 17-1756 (EGS) VESTA CORPORATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION I. Introduction Capitol Services Management Inc. (“CSMI” or “Plaintiff”) brought t

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ) (f/k/a Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.), ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) C.A. No. N21C-02-143 ) PRW CCLD CAPITOL SPECIALTY INSURANCE ) CORPORATION, MAXUM ) INDEMNITY COMPANY, CERTAIN

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ) (f/k/a Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.), ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) C.A. No. N21C-02-143 ) PRW CCLD CAPITOL SPECIALTY INSURANCE ) CORPORATION, MAXUM ) INDEMNITY COMPANY, CERTAIN

FILE THIS OPINION WAS FILED FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON FEBRUARY 13, 2025 IN CLERK’S OFFICE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON FEBRUARY 13, 2025 SARAH R. PENDLETON

MEMORANDUM OPINION SUSAN K. GAUVEY, United States Magistrate Judge. Now pending before this Court is plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to Counts' II and III of the First Amended Complaint and Count XII of defendant’s Counterclaim. (ECF No. 77). Defendant has submitted a cross motion for summary judgment as to Count III of the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 81). The Court held a heari

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BERTHA SHORTER, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 18-2124 (JDB) ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Bertha Shorter brought this suit against her former employer, the Architect of the Capitol (the “Architect”), alleging discrimination on the

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-12-00351-CV CAPITOL WIRELESS, LP AND APPELLANTS EYESIGHT MANAGEMENT, LLC V. XTO ENERGY, INC. APPELLEE ---------- FROM THE 236TH DISTRICT

677 F.Supp.2d 188 (2010) CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, Plaintiff, v. AMERIGROUP MARYLAND, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 09-01084 (HHK). United States District Court, District of Columbia. January 4, 2010. David S. Greenberg, Ralph A. Taylor, Arent Fox, LLP, Washington, DC, Ray T. *189 Torgerson, Scott M. Kelly, Porter & He

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action 09-01084 (HHK) AMERIGROUP MARYLAND, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Capitol Medical Center, doing business as United Medical Center (“Capitol”), brings this ac

COMBS, V.C.J., dissenting to denial of rehearing. T1 I dissent to the denial of rehearing in the above styled matter.1 The Appellee requested a rehearing to clarify2 the Per Cu-riam opinion in light of our previous decisions wherein we upheld the constitutionality of various acts under an Okla. Const. art. 2, § 5

OSCN Found Document:PRESCOTT v. OKLAHOMA CAPITOL PRESERVATION COMMISSION OSCN navigation Home Courts Court Dockets L

FILE THIS OPINION WAS FILED FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON FEBRUARY 13, 2025 IN CLERK’S OFFICE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON FEBRUARY 13, 2025 SARAH R. PENDLETON

HAIGHT, Senior District Judge: This action alleges violation of civil rights and seeks recovery from several defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Those federal claims are accompanied by state law tort claims, asserted under supplemental jurisdiction,

716 F.Supp.2d 172 (2010) DOES 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Plaintiffs, v. ENFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-685 (JCH). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. May 31, 2010. *174 Alex J. Luchenitser, Ayesha N. Khan, Devin M. Cain, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Daniel Mach, Sandra J. Sta

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief Judge. This case involves allegations of unlawful racial discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation by the Office of the Architect of the Capitol (“OAC”). Before the Court is defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Judgment on the Pleadings. Def.’s Mot. [20], Nov. 8, 2011. Having c

16‐2825‐cv(L) BWP Media USA Inc. v. Polyvore, Inc. 1 2 In the 3 United States Court of Appeals 4 For the Second Circuit 5 ________ 6 7 AUGUST TERM, 2017 8 9 ARGUED: SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 10 DECID

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COLUMBUS PRESSLEY, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 22-2262 (RC) : v. : Re Document Nos.: 9, 13, 14, 15

ACCEPTED 15-24-00128-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/16/2024 12:00 AM No. 15-24-00128-CV

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA US DOMINION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00040 (CJN) SIDNEY POWELL, et al., Defendants. US DOMINION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00213 (CJN) RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI, Defendant. U