Cases

KIM R. GIBSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. Introduction Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 91) filed by Defendant Bryan Devlin ("Devlin"), the sole remaining defendant in this case.1 The Motion has been fully briefed *709(see ECF Nos. 9

982 F.Supp. 8 (1997) Sondra W. HYMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FIRST UNION CORP., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 94-1043 (RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. August 27, 1997. *9 Paul C. Sprenger, Sprenger & Lang, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, Jane Lang, Timothy B. Flemming, Michael D. Lieder, Sprenger &

980 F.Supp. 46 (1997) Sondra W. HYMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FIRST UNION CORP., et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 94-1043(RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. October 9, 1997. *47 *48 Paul C. Sprenger, Sprenger & Lang, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, Jane Lang, Timothy B. Fle

MEMORANDUM OPINION LAMBERTH, District Judge. This matter comes before the court on plaintiffs’ motion to maintain their claims as class, collective, and consolidated issues for the common issues trial, and on defendants’ several motions for summary judgment. In a memorandum opinion issued August 12, 1997, 982 F.Supp. 1 (“Hyman I”), the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to maintain two collective action

FLAUM, Circuit Judge. This is a diversity action involving a leaky roof. Plaintiff Young Radiator Company (“Young”) brought suit against the Celotex Corporation (“Celotex”), the manufacturer of the roofing system at issue, alleging negligent manufacture and defective design of the roof, breach of contract, and breach of warranty. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Cel-otex, finding that Young’s tort cl

296 B.R. 868 (2003) In re John HARROLD, Debtor. Larry S. Hyman, Chapter 7 Trustee for Scott Wetzel Services, Inc., Plaintiff, v. John Harrold & Judith Harrold, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 00-12241-8B7, Adversary No. 00-614. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. August 1, 2003. *869 Allan C. Watkins,

132 F.Supp.2d 528 (2001) J. Barrett HYMAN, M.D., Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF LOUISVILLE, et al., Defendants. Civ.A. No. 399CV597S. United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, at Louisville. March 21, 2001. *529 *530 Jay Alan Sekulow, Atlanta, GA, Francis J. Manion, American Center for Law &

142 F.Supp.2d 735 (2001) William Clarke HYMAN As Assignee of the claims of William Clark Motors, Inc. Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY Defendant. No. 2:99-2532-11. United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division. February 22, 2001. *736 *737 Fred Thompson, III, Ness Motley

209 N.J. Super. 242 (1986) 507 A.2d 290 HYMAN SECKULAR AND RUTH SECKULAR, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. CELOTEX; CELOTEX, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO PHILIP CAREY, ET ALS., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Submitted February 26, 1986. Decided April 3, 1986. *245

796 F.Supp. 905 (1992) Andre HYMAN, Plaintiff, and Norfolk Shipbuilding and Drydock Corporation, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 2:91cv00736. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division. August 18, 1992. *906 Jon P. Eichler, Norfolk, Va., for Andre Hyman.

BACHARACH, Circuit Judge. Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corporation manufactures bone mills, which are medical devices used in spinal-fusion surgery. In 2000, Lenox began to sell some of its bone mills through a Medtronic entity, Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA. The arrangement ended badly: Medtronic Sofa-mor Danek USA initiated a recall of Le-nox’s bone mills, and another Medtronic ent

WEINSTEIN, Judge. Opinion1 Defendant has moved for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs claim is barred by the Severin doctrine, which holds that a prime contractor may recover damages on behalf of its subcontractor only if the prime contractor alleges actual damages to itself. Following briefing by the parties, the court now grants the motion.

OPINION & ORDER PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge. Plaintiff John Delaney brings suit against Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America Merrill Lynch f/k/a Banc of America Securities, LLC (collectively, “Bank of America” or “BoA”), alleging that BoA (1) violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621, by terminating him; and (2) breached an oral agree

48 So.3d 234 (2010) Donald MARIN, Sr., Engsfeld F. Marin, III, Clyde J. Breaux and Veronica Marin Breaux v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, formerly known as and Successor in Interest to Exxon Corporation ND Humble Oil & Refining Company, Atlantic Richfield Company, Legacy Resources Co., L.P., MJF Property Management, L.L.C. and Mike Bourgeois. Nos. 2009-C-2368, 2009-C-2371. Supreme Court of Louisiana.

648 F.3d 506 (2011) DYNEGY MARKETING AND TRADE, a Colorado Partnership, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MULTIUT CORPORATION, an Illinois Corporation, and Nachshon Draiman, an Illinois Resident, Defendants-Appellants. No. 10-2811. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued January 12, 2011. Decided August 4, 2011. *5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SEYBERT, District Judge. Pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Award Packaging Corporation (“Award”) and R & E Packaging, LLC (“R & E”) (collectively, “Defendants”) seeking dismissal of all of the claims of Rococo Associates, Inc. (“Rococo” or “Plaintiff’) and also partial summary judgment on their counterclaims against Plaintiff and the

917 N.E.2d 899 (2009) 234 Ill.2d 266 334 Ill.Dec. 824 EXELON CORPORATION, Appellant, v. The DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE et al., Appellees. No. 105582. Supreme Court of Illinois. February 20, 2009. Modified on Denial of Rehearing July 15, 2009. *902 Barry Levenstam, Amy K.

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Paul G. Hyman, Jr., Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the Motion for Summary Judgment (“GECC’s Motion for Summary Judgment”) (ECF No. 510) filed by Defendant General Electric Capital Corporation (“GECC”) and the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (the “Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment”) (ECF No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ALESIA, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on appeal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73(d) and 74, from a judgment entered by United States Magistrate Judge Edward Bobrick granting in part and denying in part Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and granting in part and denying in part PlaintiffiAppellee/Cro

446 F.Supp.2d 437 (2006) Melody Ann ROBINSON, Daniel Patrick Robinson, a Minor Child, by His Guardian, Kathy Regalman, Plaintiffs, v. MEADWESTVACO CORPORATION SAVINGS AND EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN FOR SALARIED AND NON-BARGAINED HOURLY EMPLOYEES, and Barbara Jean Merritt, Defendants. C.A. No. 2:05-1855-PMD. United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division.