Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER1 JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on (i) the Defendant’s Opposed Motion to Designate the Case Complex, filed March 28, 2016 (Doc. 56)(“Motion to Declare Complex”); and (ii) the Defendant’s Motion to Strike Government’s Response to Defendant’s Opposed Motion to Declare Case Complex and in the Alte

734 F.Supp.2d 973 (2010) Nicholas HARRIS, Petitioner, v. Sylvia GARCIA, Respondent. No. C 01-21193 RMW (PR). United States District Court, N.D. California. August 17, 2010. *981 Nicholas Harris, Corcoran, CA, pro se. Christopher William Grove, Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent. ORDER GRANTI

PER CURIAM. Felipe Garda-Roque appeals his convictions and sentences on three counts of sexual battery of a child under eighteen by a person in familial or custodial authority, entered after he entered pleas to the charges while purportedly reserving the right to appeal the trial court’s ruling on a pre-trial motion in limine. Because the trial court’s ruling on the motion in limine was not dispositive, see, e.g., Levine v

FREDERICKA HOMBERG WICKER, Judge. |2Claimant, Isaac Garcia, appeals the trial court’s judgment denying his claim for workers’ compensation following a trial on the merits wherein the parties, by agreement, submitted the matter to the court by stipulations, exhibits, and plaintiffs deposition, and the workers’ compensation court found claimant did not sustain a compensa-ble work-related injury. For the following reasons, we

MEMORANDUM ** Ricky Garcia, a New Mexico state prisoner housed in the California prison system under the Western Interstate Corrections Compact (WICC), appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both the district court’s exhaustion determination,

MEMORANDUM ** Ricky Garcia, a New Mexico state prisoner housed in the California prison system under the Western Interstate Corrections Compact (WICC), appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both the district court’s exhaustion determination,

ORDER Within 21 days of the filing of this order, appellant shall file a response to the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The response shall comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32 and Ninth Circuit Rule 40-1. The court grants leave pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a) to any amicus wishing to file a brief bearing on the petition, so long as it is filed no later than 10 days

REINHARDT, dissenting from initial denial of emergency rehearing en banc (although agreeing with opinion of the en banc court): This is a case in which our court not only tolerated the infringement of fundamental First Amendment rights but was the architect of that infringement. First we issued an order that prohibited the public from seeing a highly controversial film that pertained to an ongoing global news

MEMORANDUM ** Ryan Christopher Garcia appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 151-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(c) and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 886 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Garcia’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to wi

Joseph M. Hood, Senior U.S. District Judge *616This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Ezee Trans, LLC ("Ezee Trans") and Roberto Garcia's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [DE 5], Plaintiff Val's Auto Sales & Repair, LLC's ("Val's") Motion to Remand [DE 7] and Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [DE 12], and Defendants Garcia and Progre

OPINION AND ORDER BESOSA, District Judge This action arises from the Commonwealth ' of Puerto Rico (the “Commonwealth”)’s default on general obligation bonds (“GO bonds”). Plaintiffs (“GO Bondholders”) are beneficial owners of GO bonds. The GO Bondholders filed suit against the Commonwealth, the Governor of the Commonwealth, the Secretary of the Treasury of the Commonwealth, the Director of the Office of

*********** The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Homick and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good ground to reconsider the evidence. Accordingly, the Full Commission REVERSES the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner and enters the following Opinion and Award.

151 P.3d 533 (2007) David GARCIA, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Christopher BROWNING, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Pima, Respondent, and The State of Arizona, Real Party in Interest. No. CV-06-0320-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc. February 9, 2007. *534 Barbara Lawall, Pim

NUMBER 13-17-00468-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG JESUS CHRISTOPHER GARCIA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 24th District Court

OPINION At issue in this case is a fire insurance policy that contains clauses excluding coverage for losses caused by the intentional act or criminal conduct of "any insured." The question is whether, based on these exclusion clauses, the insurer properly prevailed on a demurrer to the cross-complaint of two allegedly innocent insureds who suffered losses when their son, a coinsured under the policy, intentionally set fire to their home. We conclude the answer is no,

WATFORD, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment: We don’t. have to craft new rules of copyright law to resolve this appeal. We just have to follow the law we established a few years ago, without controversy, on the subject of irreparable harm. The majority’s decision to do more is a mistake in my view, and not just because much of what the majority says about copyright law may be wrong. See Dis

609 F.3d 21 (2010) Alexander DÍAZ-GARCÍA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. No. 09-1681. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Submitted March 2, 2010. Decided June 25, 2010. *22 Robert M. Warren, on brief, for petitioner. Aaron R. Petty, Trial

Filed 1/2/14 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) In re SERGIO C. GARCIA on Admission. ) S202512 ) ) ___________________________________ ) The Committee of Bar Examiners (Committee) — the entity within the State Bar of California (State Bar) that administers the California bar examination, investigates

MEMORANDUM ** Jose Servado Garcia-Fuente, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order that (1) dismissed his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision to deny his motion to continue and (2) denied his motion to remand for consideration of his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review fo

*791SUMMARY ORDER In 1996, Manuel Garcia was found guilty by a Bronx County jury of two counts of attempted murder in the second degree and one count of riot in the first degree, all in relation to a July 2, 1995 altercation in which Rafael Figueroa and Omar Rojas Beltran were injured. Garcia was sentenced by Justice Bernard J. Fried to consecutive prison terms of 8 1/3 to 25 yea