Cases

Filed 3/11/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO LARRY LEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, A158275 v. AMAZON.COM, INC., (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG14738130) Defendant and Respondent.

Filed 4/8/22 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO LARRY LEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, A158275 v. (Alameda County AMAZON.COM, INC., Super. Ct. No. RG14738130) Defendant a

John A. Gibney, Jr., United States District Judge This case involves technology that helps businesses pry into peoples' personal preferences and privacy. Advertisers use targeted marketing techniques to place advertisements in places likely to reach interested consumers. For example, advertisers for pizza buy commercials during football games and advertisers for diapers buy ads in parenting magazines. This time-tested technique has

JEFFREY T. MILLER, United States District Judge Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. ("Securus") moves the court for a stay pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of its Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) appeal. (Doc. No. 160.) Plaintiffs oppose. (Doc. No. 163.) For the reasons discussed below, the court grants Securus' motion to stay. BACKGROUND The background facts are well kn

People v Riche (2024 NY Slip Op 00785) People v Riche 2024 NY Slip Op 00785 Decided on February 14, 2024 Appellate Division, Second Department LaSalle, P.J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau

People v Riche (2024 NY Slip Op 00785) People v Riche 2024 NY Slip Op 00785 Decided on February 14, 2024 Appellate Division, Second Department Fabrice Riche Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau

LIU, J., Dissenting.—Whether Target may charge sales tax on a cup of coffee is probably not the most gripping issue before the California Supreme Court this term. But this is not really a tax case. This is a case about the reach of consumer protection statutes that prohibit unfair business practices, including misrepresentations by a retailer as to what its customers are actually paying for. Today’s decision weakens those statute

668 F.Supp.2d 448 (2009) Orlando S. RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR PHONE CORP., d/b/a DPC, Dollar Phone Services, Inc., Dollar Phone Enterprise, Inc., and Dollar Phone Access, Inc., Defendants. No. 09-CV-2290. United States District Court, E.D. New York. November 10, 2009. *449

328 B.R. 490 (2005) In re Mark D. HILL & Barbara C. Hill, Debtors. In re Michael T. Heer & Maria D. Heer, Debtors. No. 04-42452-H1-7, No. 04-42130-H1-7. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. August 3, 2005. *491 Richard L. Fuqua, II, Fuqua and Keim, Houston, TX, for Mark D. Hill and Barbara C. Hill.