Cases

ORDER DAVID C. KEESLER, United States Magistrate Judge. THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiffs Motion For Class Certification” (Document No. 41) and “Plaintiffs Brief In Support Of Motion For Class Certification” (Document No. 42) filed on April 21, 2008; “Defendants’ Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion For Class Certification” (Document No. 48) filed June 6, 2008; and “Rose’s Reply to SLM’

16 A.3d 261 (2011) 198 Md. App. 87 Alicia GOMEZ v. JACKSON HEWITT, INC. et al. No. 1074, September Term, 2009. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. March 31, 2011. *263 Daniel Katz, Silver Spring, MD, & John Roddy, Boston, MA (Elizabeth Ryan, Roddy, Klein & Ryan, Patrick Perotti, Nicole T. Fiorell

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 23-3310, 24-1273 & 24-1289 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAY PACER LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants, and MARGARET E. CUMMING, in her capacity as personal

07/14/2020 DA 19-0510 Case Number: DA 19-0510 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2020 MT 181 JAMES REAVIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY d/b/a FEDLOAN SERVICING,

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 23-3310, 24-1273 & 24-1289 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAY PACER LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants, and MARGARET E. CUMMING, in her capacity as personal

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 23-3310, 24-1273 & 24-1289 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAY PACER LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants, and MARGARET E. CUMMING, in her capacity as personal

ORDER (Mot Compel Arb—Dkt. #7) (Mot Strike Affidavit—(Dkt. #16) PEGGY A. LEEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the court is Defendant Navient Solutions, Inc.’s (“NSI”) Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings (Dkt. #7). The court has considered the motion, Plaintiffs’ Opposition (Dkt. #9), Defendant’s Reply (Dkt. #12), Defendant’s Supplemental Affidav

Hamilton, Circuit Judge. Like many students, plaintiff Nicole Nelson borrowed money to pay for her education. Defendant Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc. services repayment of her federally insured loans. On its website, Great Lakes offered to provide guidance to borrowers struggling to make their loan payments. It told borrowers: "Our trained experts work on your behalf,"

513 F.Supp.2d 1255 (2007) Brent KNUDSON, Plaintiff, v. WACHOVIA BANK; N.A Trans Union, LLC; Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; and Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:07cv608-WHA. United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division. October 4, 2007. *1256 Keith Anderson Nelms, The Law Of

535 F.Supp.2d 1255 (2008) K.W. Michael CHAMBERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Michael J. COONEY, M.D., Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. Dr. Eugene de Juan, et al., Counterclaim Defendants. Civil Action No. 07-0373-WS-B. United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division. January 23, 2008. *1256 Michael D. Knight,

RULING RE: LOSS CALCULATION AND OTHER SENTENCING GUIDELINE § 2B1.1 ISSUES JANET C. HALL, District Judge. On May 21, 2014, defendants David Bryson (“Bryson”), Bart Gutekunst (“Gute-kunst”), and Richard Pereira (“Pereira”) pled guilty to Count One of the Second Superseding Indictment, conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of section 371 of title 18 of the United States Code. The court assumes familia

ORDER THOMAS W. THRASH, JR., District Judge. This is an action to compel arbitration of a dispute arising out of a franchise agreement. It is before the Court on the Petitioners’ Motion to Compel Arbitration [Doc. 2] and the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7]. For the reasons set forth below, the Petitioners’ Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED and the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 19-2116 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NAVIENT CORP; NAVIENT SOLUTIONS LLC Appellants Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 3-17-cv-01814) Distri

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JACQUELYN BRENEA N’JAI, Plaintiff, v. No. 19-cv-2712 (DLF) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Jacquelyn N’Jai brings this action against the Department of Education (“the Departm

DISCUSSION I. MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION The Haynes defendants move to compel arbitration, arguing that I should enforce arbitration agreements that each of the named plaintiffs signed as part of their loan agreements. In addition, to the extent plaintiffs challenge the enforceability of their arbitration agreements, the Haynes defendants argue those challenges should be decided by the ar

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2020-CA-00853-COA JOHN DOE APPELLANT v. JANE DOE APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/06/2020 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JENNIFER T. SCHLOEGEL COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HARRISON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT,

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued March 24, 2015 Decided June 23, 2015 No. 14-7094 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL. TODD HEATH, ET AL., AND TODD HEATH, APPELLANT v. AT&T, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Co

689 F.Supp.2d 1265 (2010) Michael McNALL; and Karyl McNall, Plaintiffs, v. CREDIT BUREAU OF JOSEPHINE COUNTY, an Oregon Corporation; and Christopher D. Mecca, Defendants. Civil No. 07-3075-CL. United States District Court, D. Oregon, Medford Division. February 5, 2010. *1267 G. Jefferson Campbell, Jr., G. Jefferson Campbell, P.C.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MILLETT. MILLETT, Circuit Judge: Todd Heath appeals the dismissal of his False Claims Act qui tam suit against AT & T, Inc. and nineteen of its subsidiaries across the United States. The first question presented is whether an earlier and still-pending qui tam lawsuit filed against a single AT & T subsidiary bars this suit under t

Opinion ROME, J. There is a general rule in California barring the assignment of a cause of action for legal malpractice. In this case, we recognize a narrow exception to that rule. Specifically, a cause of action for legal malpractice is transferable when (as here) (1) the assignment of the legal malpractice claim is only a small, inciden