Cases

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHAN HEALTHCARE GROUP, PS, a Nos. 16-35210 Washington professional services 16-80019 corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee/Respondent, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01705- v. RSM LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO.; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE OPINION COMPANY, foreign insurance companies,

OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: This consolidated appeal presents an issue of first impression in our circuit, namely the scope of appellate jurisdiction to review a district court’s remand order in a class action case founded on federal question jurisdiction. Remand orders are not appealable as a matter of course. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Nonetheless, as

2011DEC 11 L.,U . IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE CHAN HEALTHCARE GROUP, PS, ) No. 75541-2-1 a Washington professional services) corporation, ) ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) LIBERTY M

This opinion was filed for record wmE\ IN CLERKS OPPICE \ at on^^13^ ^ 8IS>RSbE COURT,SmiE OF WASHiNQTQM DATE C/. V\aaa.^^\ SUSAN L. CARLSON SUPREME COURT CLERK GM&jusrice

Honorable Ashely M. Chan United States Bankruptcy Judge I. INTRODUCTION Kichkin General Trading, LLC ("Kichkin") and Rashiddudin Mohammadi ("Rashid") (collectively "the Movants"), holders of prepetition judgments against the debtor, Frank G. Schaffer ("Debtor"), jointly move under § 362(d)(1) for relief from the automatic stay for cause based upon the Debtor's bad faith in filing this case. Based upo

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT G.P.P., INC., doing business as No. 23-4167 Guardian Innovative Solutions, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00321- Plaintiff - Appellee, SKO v. GUARDIAN PROTECTION OPINION PRODUCTS, INC.; RPM WO

MEMORANDUM OPINION T.S. Ellis, III, United States District Judge An indictment has issued charging defendant with being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At issue on defendant’s pretrial motion is whether controlling precedent requires exclusion of the testimony of a firearms seller who, when shown a single photograph of defendant one to three hours after a firearm

¶1 Petitioners Jack Oltman and his mother Bernice Oltman1 were passengers who became ill on a cruise ship sailing from Chile to San Diego. They filed suit against respondents Holland America Cruise Line USA, Inc., and Holland America Line, Inc. (hereafter Holland America) in King County Superior Court, asserting several causes of action. Petitioner Susan Oltman, who was not a passenger on the ship, asserted a c

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHRISTOPHER W. HESSE; NATHANIEL  OLSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 08-35235 SPRINT CORPORATION, a foreign corporation,  D.C. No. 2:-6-cv-00592-JCC Defendant, OPINION

PRETRIAL ORDER # 100 (.Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Finding of Spoliation and for Sanctions) CHERYL A. EIFERT, United States Magistrate Judge. Currently pending in this multidistrict litigation is Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Finding of Spoliation and for Sanctions. (ECF No. 952). Plaintiffs claim that after a duty to preserve evidence had been triggered, defendant Ethicon, Inc. (“Ethicon

965 F.Supp. 1327 (1997) In re CALIFORNIA MICRO DEVICES SECURITIES LITIGATION. This document relates to: All Actions. No. C-94-2817-VRW. United States District Court, N.D. California. May 20, 1997. *1328 Joseph M. Hassett, Jean S. Moore, George H. Mernick III, Albert W. Turnbull, Hogan & Hartson L.L.P., Washington, DC, James M. Fi

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE FUTURESELECT PORTFOLIO No. 68130-3- MANAGEMENT, INC., FUTURESELECT PRIME ADVISOR II LLC, THE MERRIWELL FUND, LP, and TELESIS IIW, LLC, Appellants, rv> up TREMONT GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION RICHARD D. BENNETT, District Judge. This class action concerns an alleged price-fixing conspiracy in the market for titanium dioxide.1 The Plaintiff class representatives Haley Paint Company, Isaac Industries, Inc., and East Coast Colorants, LLC, doing business as Breen Color Concentrates, and the class of titanium dioxide purchasers whom they repre

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART TARSADIA DEFENDANTS AND DEFENDANT PLAYGROUND DESTINATION’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge. Plaintiffs Dean Beaver, Laurie Beaver, Steven Adelman, Abram Agachi, Dinesh Gauba, Kevin Kenna and Veronica Kenna (collectively “Plaintiffs”) brought a class action on behalf of themselve

Verellen, J. ¶1 Bernard Madoff’s incredible “success” as an investor spurred some investment firms to contract with Madoff to manage their “feeder funds.”1 An investment firm sold such funds to a group of local investors, who lost $195 million when Madoff’s notorious Ponzi scheme collapsed. ¶2 The investors (FutureSelect) sued the investment firm (Tremont), its corporate parent (Op

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE TED D. KELLNER, ) ) Plaintiff and ) Counterclaim-Defendant, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2023-0879-LWW ) AIM IMMUNOTECH INC., ) ) Defendant and ) Count

Fort Detrick/Walter Reed Army Medical Center Housing LLC v. Robert Wynn, No. 28, September Term, 2025. Opinion by Biran, J. UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION – ENCLAVE CLAUSE – ACCEPTANCE OF JURISDICTION BY THE UNITED STATES – The Enclave Clause of the United States Constitution provides that Congress has the power to “exercise exclusive Legislation … over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, doc

13-3123; 13-3088 In re Reassignment of Cases: Ligon; Floyd et al. v. City of New York, et al. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 13th day of November, two

Clark, P. J., This court believes that the statement of facts as set out in the brief on behalf of the Township of Penn Hills is very complete and the court adopts the same and it is as follows: “The parties have stipulated to most if not all of the essential facts involved in this case. The following brief summary of these facts is based on the stipulation and Exhibits thereto and on the plaintiffs’ c

545 F.Supp. 852 (1982) Ernestine ATKINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. William A. ROBINSON, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 81-0778-R. United States District Court, E. D. Virginia, Richmond Division. August 2, 1982. *853 *854 *855 *85