Cases

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND ORDER STAYING PORTION OF ACTION PENDING CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULING ON MEAL AND REST BREAK ISSUES FLORENCE-MARIE COOPER, District Judge. The matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (docket no. 59), filed on March 16, 2009. The Court has read and considered the moving, opposing, and reply documents submitted

González, J. ¶1 This case asks us to decide whether an officer has lawful authority to arrest a gross misdemeanor suspect based only on the observations of another officer and whether an officer who directs an arrest from a remote location is an “arresting officer.” Unless a statutory exception applies, an officer may arrest a misdemeanor suspect without a warrant only if the officer was present when the misdemean

Appelwick, J. ¶1 — Ortega appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. Ortega argues the arresting officer did not have the authority to arrest him without a warrant because Ortega did not commit a misdemeanor in the officer’s presence as required by RCW 10.31.100. Therefore, the search incident to that arrest was illegal, and the evidence should have been suppressed. The State responds that the arrest

OPINION After the trial court had overruled appellant, Bienvenido Ortega's, motion to suppress evidence, appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment alleging possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, methamphetamine, of 200 grams or more, but less than 400 grams.1 The trial court sentenced appellant, pursuant to a plea bargain, to confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas De

ORDER CECILIA M. ALTONAGA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants, Array Connector Corporation, Bill McPherson, and Bel Fuse, Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants!/]”) Joint Defense Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings...(“Motion”) [ECF No. 74], filed on January 15, 2016. Plaintiff, Ramon Ortega (“Ortega”) filed an Opposition... (“Response”) [ECF No. 83] on February 1,

Opinion RICHLI, J. Around 1993, when his daughter was about nine years old, defendant Enrique Ortega started groping her breasts and vaginal area. In 1996, when she was 12 years old, she made a partial disclosure to her mother, stating only that defendant had touched her breast once. As a result, her mother ma

640 F.3d 814 (2011) Daniel Rolando ORTEGA-MARROQUIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. American Immigration Council; National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner. No. 10-1846. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: February 17, 2011. Filed:

598 F.Supp.2d 1025 (2009) Manuel de Jesus ORTEGA MELENDRES, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. ARPAIO, et al., Defendant. No. CV-07-2513-PHX-MHM. United States District Court, D. Arizona. February 10, 2009. *1029 David Jeremy Bodney, Peter Shawn Kozinets, Karen J. Hartman, Isaac Pasaret Hernandez, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Daniel Joseph Po

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Several class action lawsuits were commenced against Uponor, Inc. and Radiant Technology, Inc. in 2009, alleging that they had manufactured and distributed leaky brass plumbing fittings. The cases were consolidated by the judicial panel on multi-district litigation, and after months of negotiation the parties reached a settlement agreement in November 2011

MEMORANDUM * Substantial evidence supports the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that the petitioner did not suffer persecution on account of one of the five statutory grounds. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1). Therefore, the petition must be DENIED. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 1015, 1019-20 (9th Cir.2003). This disposition is not

Justice RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court. This case arises out of a routine weapons and narcotics interdiction that led to the arrest of Defendant, Christina Ortega. The state filed this interlocutory appeal pursuant to CAR. 4.1 and section 16-12-102(2), 6 C.R.S. (2000), for review of the trial court's order suppressing evidence against Defendant.1 The trial court found

80 Cal.Rptr.2d 489 (1998) 19 Cal.4th 686 968 P.2d 48 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ernesto ORTEGA et al., Defendants and Appellants. No. S055216. Supreme Court of California. December 17, 1998. *490 Leslie C. Greenbaum, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Woodland Hil

COFFIN, Senior Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from a judgment following a conditional plea of guilty to one count charging possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one count of possession, during and in relation to drug trafficking, of a firearm in furtherance of such drug trafficking, in violation of 18

People v Ortega (2022 NY Slip Op 05801) People v Ortega 2022 NY Slip Op 05801 Decided on October 18, 2022 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

ROSS, Circuit Judge. Pablo Ortega, Daniel Castro, and Sonya Polmanteer appeal from judgments entered upon jury verdicts finding them guilty of possession of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. Appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions. Polmanteer also challenges her sentence. We affirm the convictio

Jensen, Justice. [¶1] Nancy Ortega appeals from a district court order granting summary judgment, dismissing her professional negligence claim against Sanford Bismarck and Dr. Christie Iverson without prejudice. We conclude the court erred in applying N.D.C.C. § 28-01-46 to grant summary judgment. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. I [¶2] In June 2014, Ortega was seen at Sanford Bismarck

*509 Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered June 9, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the amended motion of defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the amended motion gr

People v Ortega (2019 NY Slip Op 07339) People v Ortega 2019 NY Slip Op 07339 Decided on October 10, 2019 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law §

Appellate Case: 24-2121 Document: 85-1 Date Filed: 08/19/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 19, 2025

Matter of Ortega v Sanchez (2021 NY Slip Op 03185) Matter of Ortega v Sanchez 2021 NY Slip Op 03185 Decided on May 19, 2021 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant