Cases

ACCEPTED 15-25-00022-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/26/2025 10:33 PM No. 15-25-00022-CV CHRIST

(1) GRANTING CITY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS; (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART OFFICER DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS; AND (3) GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. Nos. 23, 24) The issue before the Court is whether Plaintiff Arvaunti Victoria ("Victoria") has adequately alleged that his traffic stop conducted by San Diego Police

ACCEPTED 15-25-00022-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/26/2025 3:39 PM No. 15-25-00022-CV

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTIONS TO TRANSFER Re: Docket Nos. 281, 283, 285, 286 JOSEPH C. SPERO, United States Chief Magistrate Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs in this putative class action are former Minor League baseball players who assert claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and California, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina and New Yo

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS BANK OF NEW YORK’S, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.’S, AND BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING LP’S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON OCTOBER 12, 2011 J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On May 25, 2010, Plaintiff Perle Menashe (“Plaintiff’) filed this action alleging various claims against Defenda

725 F.Supp.2d 1157 (2010) Estate of Jessie P. CONTRERAS, by and Through His Special Administrator Leonor Contreras; and Leonor Contreras, individual, mother of Jessie Contreras, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF GLENN; Glenn County Sheriff's Department; Larry Jones, individually and in his official capacity as Glenn Country Sheriff; Lt. Tim Asbury, Lt. Revolinski, Lt. Warren, Sgt. White, individually and in their official capacities as Commander

47 F.3d 1499 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Dennis Keith McCHRISTIAN, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.John Berry INGRAM, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 92-10644, 92-10704. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 10, 1994.*Decided J

MEMORANDUM OPINION DENYING DEFENDANT ADOLFO VELA’S MOTION FOR REMAND [Resolving ECF No. 12 ] Eduardo V. Rodriguez, United States Bankruptcy Judge I. INTRODUCTION Pending before the Court is a single motion, self-styled as “Motion for Re-mand,” filed by Adolfo Vela {“Vela”), a defendant, on June 9, 2016. [ECF No. 2] (including as amended, the “Mo

**34 *471 Corrigan, A.C.J. *822 In the November 2016 election California voters approved Proposition 66, the Death Penalty Reform an

Opinion KRUGER, J. A jury convicted defendant Pedro Rangel, Jr., of the first degree murders of Juan Uribe and Chuck Durbin. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); id.. former § 189.) The jury also found true a multiple-murder special-circumstance allegation and, as to Durbin’s murder, a personal firearm use sentence-enhancement allegation. (Pen. Code, § 190.2, sub

ORDER Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge THIS MATTER comes before the Court on defendants’ motion to dismiss, docket no. 80, based on lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Having considered all of the materials filed in support of, and in opposition to, the motion, and the oral arguments of counsel, the Court enters the following order. Background

Concurring Opinion by ACOBA, J., with whom DUFFY, J., Joins. I concur with the result in this case, but note my qualification to the majority’s holding that the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (the court) “erred when it concluded that an assignment by operation of law is consistent with Hawaii’s rules governing construction of insurance policies.” Majority opinion at 368, 183 P.3d at 745

101 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 702 CALIFORNIA STATE AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION INTER-INSURANCE BUREAU, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PARICHAN, RENBERG, CROSSMAN & HARVEY, Defendant and Appellant. No. A081931. Court of Appeal, First District, Division Two. October 31, 2000. Rehearing Denied November 28, 2000. Revi

ORDER HEMPHILL, District Judge. This is a consolidated patent-antitrust case, spawned from efforts of Deering Milliken, Inc., to collect royalties on certain patents licensed to Duplan, Burlington, Inc. and others. Over forty causes of action matured in an uncoordinated but connected series of law suits among the various litigants, grouped on one side or another according to common interests. Issues of valid

400 F.Supp. 497 (1975) The DUPLAN CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. DEERING MILLIKEN, INC., et al., Defendants. DEERING MILLIKEN RESEARCH CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. The DUPLAN CORPORATION and Burlington Industries, Inc., Defendants. The DUPLAN CORPORATION et al., Plaintiffs on the Counterclaim, v. DEERING MILLIKEN RESEARCH CORPORATION, Defendant on the Counterclaim, and Deering Milliken, Inc., et al., Additional Defendant

ORDER & REASONS ELDON E. FALLON, District Judge. Before the Court are the following four motions: (1) Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd’s (“TG”) Renewed Motion to Vacate the Default Judgment and Dismiss the Complaint in Germano v. Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd., Case No. 09-6687 (R. Doc. 13490); (2) TG’s Renewed Motion Pursuant to Rules 55(c) and 12(b)(2) to Vacate the Entry of Default and Dismiss T