Cases

OPINION & ORDER PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: Plaintiffs Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. (collectively “Coach”) bring claims of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, copyright infringement, and state statutory claims for trademark infringement, among other state claims, against defendants Horizon Trading USA Inc. (“Horizon Trading”) and Ke Yi Fang (“Fang”).

Crescent Univ. City Venture, LLC v. AP Atl., Inc., 2019 NCBC 46. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION MECKLENBURG COUNTY 15 CVS 14745 (Master File) CRESCENT UNIVERSITY CITY VENTURE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. AP ATLANTIC, INC. d/b/a ADOLFSON & PETERSON CONSTRUCTION, Defendant, v. MADISON CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC.; TRUSSWAY MANUFACTURIN

537 F.2d 915 13 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1437,12 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 11,042Carole Anderson ROMASANTA et al., Plaintiffs,v.UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee,Liane Buix McDonald, on her own behalf and on behalf ofothers similarlysituated, Petitioning Intervenor-Appellant. No. 75--2063. United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.

JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss *1219Counts 1 and 5 of the Indictment, filed September 24, 2018 (Doc. 72)("Motion"). The primary issues are whether: (i) a Navajo Nation Department of Public Safety ("NDPS") officer, Houston Largo, was a fe

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 1 JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Santa Fe Public Schools Board of Education’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 100], filed March 3, 2014 (Doc. 187) (“MSJ”). The Court held a hearing on April 8, 2014. The primary issues are: (i)

497 F.Supp.2d 143 (2007) Peter J. LIMONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Civ. Action No. 02cv10890-NG. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. July 26, 2007. *144 *145 *146 *147

*259Mr. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. For the third time in 50 years the Court is asked specifically to rule that professional baseball’s reserve system is within the reach of.the federal antitrust laws.1 *260Collateral issues of state law and o