Cases

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PATTI B. SARIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“Kaiser”), Aetna, Inc. (“Aetna”), and Guardian Life Insurance Company (“Guardian”), collectively the Coordinated Plaintiffs, bring this case against Pfizer, Inc. and Warner-Lambert Company, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER VRATIL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on various motions and matters raised at the *1248status conference conducted August 24, 1993. Having considered the arguments of counsel, the court hereby makes the following orders: 1. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment

Case: 24-60381 Document: 72-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 24-60381

866 A.2d 1273 (2005) 273 Conn. 12 Charles M. PARROT v. The GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA. No. 17062. Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued September 21, 2004. Decided March 1, 2005. *1274 Bruce L. Elstein, Bridgeport, with whom was David C. Grimes, for the appellant (plaintiff)

593 S.E.2d 595 (2004) George P. HUNTER, Jr. and Annette Hunter in their individual capacities, and Amy S. Hunter, Michael S. Hunter, And G. Patrick Hunter III, as trustees of the Charlotte Insurance Trust Agreement, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Consolidated Planning, Inc., Robert M. Ball, Todd H. Dickens and Lang MacBain, Defendants-Appellees. No. COA02-1533. <

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. David Reicher and Affiliated Podiatrists appeal from the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissing their claims asserting unfair claims settlement practices in violation of Chapter 93A of the Massachusetts General Laws. That decision was based on the district court’s finding that the alleged unfair practices ha

243 F.Supp.2d 686 (2002) Richard O. HUNTON and Benny Pace, Trustee of the Richard O. Hunton Irrevocable Trust, Plaintiffs, v. GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant. No. CIV.A.H-01-0647. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. November 16, 2002. *691 Kent Melvin Hanszen, Attorney at Law, R Scott

941 So.2d 812 (2006) Terry L. BULLARD v. The GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA. No. 2005-CA-00849-SCT. Supreme Court of Mississippi. November 2, 2006. *813 Rachel Marie Pierce, William M. Beasley, Tupelo, attorneys for appellant. Steven H. Begley, Ridgeland, James R. Carroll, David S. Clancy, Kara E. Fay, attorney

331 F.Supp.2d 476 (2004) Lou Ann O'BANNON, et al. Plaintiffs v. GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA; Harrison H. Jones; Center for Financial Planning; Jonathan Zimlich, and John Does 1-20 Defendants No. 1:03 CV 836 GURO. United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division. August 5, 2004. *477 Michael E. Beck, Fr

94 F.Supp.2d 998 (2000) Edward J. SPOLNIK, Jr., D.D.S., Plaintiff, v. GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant. No. IP97-1198-C-T/G. United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division. March 29, 2000. *999 *1000 Robert E. Saint, Emswiller, Williams, Noland & Cla

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2005-CA-00849-SCT TERRY L. BULLARD v. THE GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/01/2005 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. SHARION R. AYCOCK COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: ALCORN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: RACHEL MARIE PIERCE

984 P.2d 917 (1999) 161 Or. App. 615 Bruce L. RICHARDSON, D.M.D., Appellant, v. The GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and Clifford A. Bailey, Respondents. (9608-06418; CA A101063) Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted March 15, 1999. Decided July 7, 1999. *919 Albert J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GETTLEMAN, District Judge. Plaintiff Phillip E. Couri has filed a one-count amended complaint challenging defendant Guardian Life Insurance Company of America’s denial of dental benefits for plaintiffs dependant son under an employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 ' U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff seeks

834 F.Supp. 251 (1993) Antonio S. LOPEZ and Sonia Lopez, Plaintiffs, v. The GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and The Epic Life Insurance Company, Defendant. No. 92 C 2438. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. July 30, 1993. *252 Edward Eshoo, Jr., Michael Childress, Tenney & Bentley, Chicago, IL for pla

151 F.Supp. 17 (1957) Jan DANISCH, Antoni Danisch, Julia Danisch, Anna Schwientek, Gertrud Wojtcyzk, Emma Schweda, Sofia Janta, Jadwiga Salawa, Maria Stancyzk, Luiza Lesch and Gertrude Urganek, Plaintiffs, v. The GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant. United States District Court S. D. New York. March 13, 1957. Supplemental Opinion April 18, 1957.

171 Ga. App. 576 (1984) 320 S.E.2d 575 STEGALL v. GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA. 68451. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Decided June 26, 1984. Rehearing Denied July 11, 1984. Daniel K. McCall, for appellant. H. Sanders Carter, Jr., Griffin Patrick, Jr., Suzanne L. Lowenthal, for appellee.

ACCEPTED 04-15-00548-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 11/1

MEMORANDUM OPINION RICHARD J. LEON, District Judge. On September 17, 2012, pro se plaintiff Kenneth W. Jones (“Jones” or “plaintiff’) filed the instant action against the United States of America and several non-federal entities and persons, seeking $75 million in damages due to “fright, shock, and mental anguish.”

DIMOCK, District Judge. Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, Wolf, Popper, Ross, Wolf & Jones, move, pursuant to Rule 28(b), F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S. C.A., for an order that letters rogatory *237issue to the appropriate judicial authorities of the Government of Poland, under which there may be taken, in Poland, the depositions of plaintiffs and agents of the National Bank o

The opinion of the Court was delivered by O’HERN, J. Over the past twenty years, one of the most consistent statistics in America has been the rising divorce rate. In turn, a sad, but familiar, scenario has arisen. Following a bitter divorce, a settlement agreement divides the marital property, with a life insurance policy being awarded to the insured. The policy, however, names the ex-spouse as benef