Cases

*5 JUDGMENT This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has accorded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C.Cir. R. 36(d). It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the deci

MEMORANDUM ORDER Gladys Kessler, United States District Judge Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Reform the Consent Order and to Allow an ERISA Claim [Dkt. No. 108]. The Consent Decree was entered September 25, 2007 by Judge James Robertson [Dkt. No. 59], settling a class action by retirees of Defendant Intelsat Global Service Corporation to enforce their retiree health benefits. Based upon the Motion, the

MEMORANDUM ORDER Gladys Kessler, United States District Judge Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Enforce Consent Decree and Hold Defendants in Contempt [Dkt. No. 92] for failing to comply with a Consent Decree and Final Judgment (“Consent Decree”). That Consent Decree, entered September 25, 2007, by Judge James Robertson [Dkt. No. 59], settled a class action by retirees of Defendant Intelsat Global Service Corp.

Re Document No.: 44 MEMORANDUM OPINION Deferring a Decision on Intelsat’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Intelsat USA Sales LLC (“Intelsat”), formerly known as Intelsat USA Sal

736 F.Supp.2d 1334 (2010) INTELSAT CORPORATION; and Intelsat, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. MULTIVISION TV LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No. 10-21982-CIV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division. August 24, 2010. *1336 David I. Bledsoe, Alexandria, VA, David Buckner, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Coral Gables, FL, fo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) INTELSAT CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v.

Re Document No.: 37 MEMORANDUM OPINION Granting in Part and Denying in Part Intelsat’s Motion to Dismiss RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION In this contract dispute between two satellite communications companies, the defendant and counter-claimant a

Re Document Nos.: 59, 74 MEMORANDUM OPINION Denying Juch-Tech’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and Denying Juch-Tech’s Motion to Strike RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Intelsat USA Sales LLC (“Intelsat Sales”),

MEMORANDUM OPINION Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss the Defendant’s Counterclaim RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION At the heart of this lawsuit is a contract dispute between two satellite communications companies. Now before the court is

646 F.Supp.2d 124 (2009) MOBILE SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. d/b/a Pittsburgh International Telecommunications, Inc., Plaintiff, v. INTELSAT USA SALES CORP., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 09-0436 (ESH). United States District Court, District of Columbia. August 21, 2009. *127 Stephen J. Vaughan, Gray Plant Mooty Mooty &a;

671 F.Supp.2d 152 (2009) INVERSORA MURTEN, S.A., Plaintiff, v. ENERGOPROJEKT HOLDING CO., Defendant. Misc. Action No. 03-73 (RWR)(JMF). United States District Court, District of Columbia. December 3, 2009. *153 Jon Schuyler Brooks, Phillips Nizer LLP, Garden City, NY, for Plaintiff. MEMORANDUM OPINION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) MOBILE SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS, ) INC. d/b/a PITTSBURGH INTERNATIONAL ) TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No.

408 B.R. 687 (2009) In re SKYPORT GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Debtor. Skyport Global Communications, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Intelsat Corporation, Defendant. No. 08-36737-H4-11. Adversary No. 09-03067. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. July 24, 2009. *689 Edward L. Rothberg, Weycer Kaplan Pulaski &

534 F.Supp.2d 32 (2008) INTELSAT GLOBAL. SALES AND MARKETING, LTD., Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY OF YUGOSLAV POSTS TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES, Defendant. Civil Action No. 06-897 (RWR). United States District Court, District of Columbia. January 28, 2008. *33 David I. Bledsoe, Alexandria, VA, for Plaintiff. Joseph Gerard Davis, K

154 F.Supp.2d 570 (2001) ALCATEL SPACE, S.A., and Alcatel Space Industries, S.A., Plaintiffs, v. LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS LTD., Loral Space & Communications Corp., Loral Spacecom Corp., and Space Systems Loral, Inc., Defendants. No. 01 Civ. 2265(SAS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. April 26, 2001. *571 <

ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE OF PROCESS ABROAD JAMES LAWRENCE KING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This Cause having come before the Court on Plaintiffs Lourdes Leon, Alexander Paz, Seth Burack, and Nuria Reina’s Motion for Entry of an Order Directing Service of Process Abroad [DE #23] (“Motion”), requesting entry of an Order (1) directing the Clerk of the Southern District of Florida to r

209 F.Supp.2d 119 (2002) Donna WADLEY, et al. Plaintiffs, v. Ricardo ASPILLAGA, et al. Defendants. No. CIV. 00-1885(RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. May 22, 2002. *120 Patrick Michael Regan, Regan, Halperin and Long, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Stephen Alfred Bou, Bou and Bou, Washington, DC, fo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) MARY C. WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 20-cv-931 (APM) ) JULIO AVILES, et al.,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DARRYL THOMAS et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 21-3242 (TJK) BANK OF AMERICA et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Darryl Thomas sued Defendants—a group of banks and loan servicers—in the District of Columbia Superior Court on behalf of himself

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued April 16, 2021 Decided June 4, 2021 No. 20-1234 TELESAT CANADA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Communications Commission