Cases

58 F.3d 857 AIRLINES REPORTING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant,v.S AND N TRAVEL, INC., doing business as Superior Travel,Efraim Schwartz, and Walter Newmark,Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees. No. 1301, Docket 94-9062. United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. Argued March 14, 1995.Decided June 27, 1995.

MOORE, Circuit Judge: Irving Klaw and Jack Kramer were indicted on one count for conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C.A. § 1461 by knowingly using the mails for the carriage of “articles, matters, and things, which were non-mailable in that they were obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy and vile.” They were also charged with having

50 F.3d 644 63 USLW 2540, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,618,31 Fed.R.Serv.3d 611 Lawrence EPSTEIN, et al., Plaintiffs,andWalter Minton, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.MCA, INC.; Matsushita Acquisition Corporation; MatsushitaElectric Industrial Co., Ltd.; Matsushita HoldingCorporation; Lew Wasserman; Sidney J.Sheinberg, Defendants-Appellees.Lawrence EPSTEIN; John Linder; Jane Rockford, as trus

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS STEARNS, District Judge. Richard Ellington brought this lawsuit against his former employer, defendant New England Investment & Retirement Group, Inc. (NEINV), alleging a termination of his employment in violation of the whistleblower provisions of the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), 15 U.S.C.

16 A.3d 949 (2011) Andrena CROCKETT, Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST, Appellee. No. 09-CV-1180. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Submitted November 12, 2010. Decided March 31, 2011. *950 Andrena Crockett, pro se. Carol S. Blumenthal and Edward J. Cordone, for appellee. Before REID,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER WILLIAM H. PAULEY III, District Judge: Plaintiff Meng-Lin Liu brings this action under the Anti-Retaliation Provision of the Dodd-Frank Act. Defendant Siemens A.G. moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, Siemens’ motion is granted. BACKGROUND Meng-Lin Liu is a resident o

OPINION AND ORDER GREGORY H. WOODS, District Judge: The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Act”) defines a “whistleblower” as “any individual who provides, or 2 or more individuals acting jointly who provide, information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission, in a manner established, by rule or regulation, by the Commissio

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS RICHARD SEEBORG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION This matter arises from the decision by defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) to fire plaintiff Joshua Banko (“Banko”). The complaint asserts five claims for relief. Defendant Apple moves to dismiss all five claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief m

977 A.2d 901 (2009) Kenneth J. LOEWINGER and Loewinger & Brand PLLC, Appellants, v. Clement STOKES, Appellee. Nos. 06-CV-1077, 06-CV-1076. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued March 6, 2008. Decided July 30, 2009. *906 Robert Corn-Revere, with whom Amber L. Husbands was on the brief, Washington, for

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge. In June 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Utah dismissed the claims of J. Hoyt Stephenson — a man the district found to be a Utah citizen — for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Less than three months later, Stephenson assigned his interests in various stock and real property to a new company of his creation, National Fitness Hol

OPINION AND ORDER SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Mark Rosenblum brings this action against his former employer, Thomson Reuters (“Thomson”) for violating Section 21F of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “34 Act”) as amended by The Dodd Frank Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6 et seq. (“The Dodd Frank Act” or “DFA”). Rosenblum seeks to recover damages “as a r

JON O. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. This appeal presents the recurring issue of statutory interpretation that arises when express terms in one provision of a statute are arguably in tension with language in another provision of the same statute. The Supreme Court recently encountered a similar issue when it interpreted a provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in Burwell v. King, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2480

ORDER WILEY Y. DANIEL, Senior District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on: (1) Defendant Marc Redlich’s Motion To Dismiss Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 84]; (2) defendants Steven S. Porter, Jeffrey Sperber, Alberto Bautista, Michel Darnaud, Cheryl Hoffman-Bray, and Philippe Gastone’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 85]; and, (3) plaintiff, Carl Genberg’s, Motion To Compel Arbitration [ECF No. 107]

JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-Appellant Khaled Asadi (“Asa-di”) filed a complaint alleging that Defendant-Appellee G.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C. (“GE Energy”) violated the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h) (the “whistleblower-pro-tection provision”), by terminating him after he made an internal repo

MEMORANDUM OPINION Thomas A. Varlan, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This civil matter is before the Court on the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC (“MSSB”) and Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. (“MSC”) [Doc. 10].1 Plaintiff filed a response [Doc. 17], and defendants replied [Doc. 19], The United States Securities and Exchange Commission

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHN M. GERRARD, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the parties’ objections (filings 74 and 76) to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation (filing 70), recommending that the Court grant in- part and deny in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss (filing 26), and recommending that the Court deny the plaintiffs motion to file her proposed third amended complai

NANGLE, District Judge: This appeal stems from Appellant Ambrosia Coal & Construction Company’s (“Ambrosia”) Fourth Amended Complaint against Appellees.1 The Complaint alleges that Appellees fraudulently induced Ambrosia into entering a settlement agreement relating to properties in Puerto Rico. Ambrosia’s complaint sets forth twenty-four state claims and three federal claims brought pursua

ORDER Cindy K. Jorgenson, United States District Judge Pending before the Court are the parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment *1141(Docs. 179 and 184) filed by Plaintiff Kenneth Day (“Day”) and Defendant LSI Corporation (“LSI”).1Responses and replies have been filed. Although the parties have requested oral argument

OPINION AND ORDER KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge. Plaintiff Julio Perez, proceeding pro se, brings this action against Defendant Pro-genies Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Progenies”), alleging that Defendant violated the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley”), 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, by terminating Plaintiffs employment in retaliation for a memorandum he wrote regarding a press release about a pharm

AMENDED ORDER DENYING (1) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS; (2) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE COUNSEL EDWARD M.- CHEN, United States District Judge ■■ I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Paul Somers brought'this lawsuit against -his former employer, Digital Realty Trust, and Ellen Jacobs, a Senior Vice President at Digital Realty Trust (collectively, Digital Realty, or Defen