Cases

*753 OPINION AND ORDER GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Valdenor Reyes brings this action against his former employer Metromedia Software, Inc. on the ground that Metromedia violated his employment contract. Reyes has moved for partial judgment on the pleadings seeking a declaration that he is entitled to cer

WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *744"Money tends to make people suspicious, if there's any money floating around."1 This case arises from just such a suspicion. By means of a License Agreement executed in 1997 ("License"), Vanderbilt University ("Vanderbilt") and Defendant Scholastic, In

MEMORANDUM OPINION Rufe, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Scholastic, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Bob Krist is a professional photographer who seeks to hold Defendant, the world’s largest publisher and distributor of ch

EBEL, Circuit Judge. Image Software, Inc. (“Image”) appeals the district court’s decision compelling arbitration, in Ohio, of a dispute arising under a software licensing agreement. Before reaching the merits of this appeal, we must address two potential problems with the district court’s jurisdiction. First, we conclude the district court had subject matter jurisdiction based

183 F.Supp.2d 860 (2001) In re SECURITIES LITIGATION BMC SOFTWARE, INC. No. H-00-0359. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. October 1, 2001. *861 *862 *863 David E. Sharp, Roger B. Greenberg, Greenberg Peden et al., Thomas E. Bilek, Hoeffner

161 F.Supp.2d 143 (2001) In re: MERCATOR SOFTWARE, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION No. 3:00CV1610 (GLG). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. September 13, 2001. *144 *145 J. Daniel Sararin, Elias A. Alexiades, David A. Slossberg, Hurwitz & Sagarin, Milford, CT, Sanford P. Dumain, Mary L. Calk

252 F.3d 63 (2nd Cir. 2001) IN RE: SCHOLASTIC CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATIONLAWRENCE B. HOLLIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,RICHARD TRUNCELLITO AND THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, APPELLANTS,v.SCHOLASTIC CORPORATION AND RAYMOND MARCHUK, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, RICHARD ROBINSON, DEFENDANT. Docket No. 00-7517August Term, 2000 UNITED STATES COU

CARDAMONE, Circuit Judge: On this appeal we construe a complaint in a securities fraud ease brought by stockholders against a book publisher and one of its officers. It is the book publisher’s practice to count as income the proceeds of any book it sells to a retailer or distributor, while at the same time granting to such buyers a full right of return. The number of returns is therefore critical to profitability in the publ

80 F.Supp.2d 139 (1999) SCHOLASTIC INC. and Scholastic Productions, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Robert HARRIS and Harris Entertainment, Inc., Defendants. Nos. 95 Civ. 176(AKH), 95 Civ. 989(AKH). United States District Court, S.D. New York. December 29, 1999. *140 *141 Martin Garbus, Frankfurt, Garbus

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 22-2370 & 22-2413 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. and MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS MALAYSIA SDN. BHD., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, v. HYTERA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION LTD., Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 22-2370 & 22-2413 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. and MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS MALAYSIA SDN. BHD., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, v. HYTERA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION LTD., Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal

650 F.Supp. 866 (1987) SCHOLASTIC, INC., Plaintiff, v. MACMILLAN, INC. and Macmillan Book Clubs, Inc., Defendants. No. 86 Civ. 4007 (JEL). United States District Court, S.D. New York. January 5, 1987. *867 Hopgood, Calimafde, Kalil, Blaustein & Judlowe, New York City, for plaintiff; James M. Rhodes, Jr., Jeffrey Steen, of cou

398 F.Supp.2d 244 (2005) In re ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. No. 03 MD 1529(LMM). United States District Court, S.D. New York. November 7, 2005. *245 *246 *247 Lawrence P. Kohler, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz

BERZON, Circuit Judge. Entrepreneur Media, Inc. (“EMI”), publisher of Entrepreneur magazine, contends that Scott Smith infringed EMI’s federally registered trademark “ENTREPRENEUR” by using the word “entrepreneur” in connection with his public relations company. The district court, Cooper J., granted summary judgment in favor of EMI on its trademark infringement claims, and Sm

270 F.3d 645 (8th Cir. 2001) FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION, PLAINTIFF - APPELLANT,v.GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; LAWRENCE M. COSS; ROBERT D. POTTS; EDWARD L. FINN, DEFENDANTS - APPELLEES.SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, AMICUS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT.IN RE: GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, STOCK LITIGATION,VIVIAN CHILL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,v.GREEN TREE

300 F.3d 881 In re: K-TEL INTERNATIONAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATIONPasquale Migliaccio; Creative Care Corporation; Glen Reudolph; Morton Kahn; David Rea; Henry Werres; Claude Seymour; Igal Mammon; Neil Litton, Dr.; Jerry Booth; Joseph Erlich; Gary Ewin; Tim Murchison; Stanford D. Williams; Rev. R.G. Moore; Murray N. Johnson; Elizabeth Alpert; Arthur Alves; Societe Financiere Privee and Ravi Anand, on behalf of themselves and all others similarl

[Cite as Cagle v. Cagle, 2022-Ohio-671.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STEPHEN C. CAGLE, : APPEAL NO. C-210275 TRIAL NO. DR1901034 Plaintiff-Appellee, : vs. : O P I N I O N. : LEAH M. CAGLE, Defendant-App

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AQUARIAN FOUNDATION, INC., No. 22-35704 A Washington nonprofit corporation, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:19-cv-01879- v. RSM BRUCE KIMBERLY LOWNDES, OPINION AKA Sankacharya Sunkara, Defendant-Appellee. AQUARIAN FOUNDAT

08/06/2024 DA 23-0564 Case Number: DA 23-0564 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2024 MT 167 ANTHONY CORDERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs and

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor