Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ‘ FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA F I l E v Ng\,l 1 6 2011 ) B d L ~, clerk U.S. District ana emar w § Balikruptcy Courts Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) civil Acri@n N@. 1 g ¢’U;{,L' ) Richard Sarles et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case because the

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed December 23, 2011, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion by decli

OPINION GOULD, Circuit Judge: We consider how and the extent to which our securities laws protect the investing public. Miko Levi, Bandar Almosa, Gregory Harrison, and Nicholas Cook (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s dismissal of their amended securities fraud class action complaint. Plaintiffs allege that Atossa Genetics, Inc. (“Atossa”) and its

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CINDY BRACKETT, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 17-988 (JEB) ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION “In law,” satirist Samuel Butler observed, “nothing is certain but the expense.” Butler, unfortunately, w

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice. [¶ 1] Susan Lundberg, as Trustee of the Gabriel J. Brown Trust, appealed from a summary judgment quieting title in a tract of land to Greg Holverson, directing the Trust to convey the land to Holverson, and dismissing the Trust’s counterclaims *720for rescission or for damages for breach of contract. The Trust argues summary judgment was in

ORDER RICHARD A. LAZZARA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the issue of whether Florida’s garnishment statutes, see Chapter 77, Florida Statutes, have extraterritorial effect. This issue came to light in the Answer of Garnishee Deutsche Bank Trust Company *1338Americas to the Writ of Garnishm

GUIDANT LLC f.k.a. GUIDANT CORPORATION, AND SUBSIDIARIES, ET AL.,1 Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RespondentGuidant LLC v. Comm'rDocket Nos. 5989-11, 5990-11, 10985-11, 26876-11, 5501-12, 5502-12.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK, District Judge. Plaintiff Hilary Coyne brings this lawsuit alleging securities fraud by Defendant Metabolix, Inc. and two of its executives, Richard Eno and Joseph Hill. Plaintiff contends the Defendants misrepresented the company’s ability to meet certain projected milestones in its biopolymer plastic manufacturing business and that it hid issues regar

DAVID C. NORTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *473The following matter is before the court on Jane Vaden Thacher ("Thacher") and Vaden of Beaufort Inc's ("the Corporation"), (together, "defendants") motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, ECF No. 5, and motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, ECF No. 7. For the reasons set

812 N.E.2d 1027 (2004) 351 Ill.App.3d 268 286 Ill.Dec. 12 Mary T. RIGGS, Plaintiff and Counter-defendant-Appellee, v. WOMAN TO WOMAN, OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, P.C., Defendant and Counter-plaintiff-Appellant. No. 2-03-1434. Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District. July 8, 2004. *1028

304 S.W.3d 556 (2009) DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellant, v. FRIENDS OF the MILITARY d/b/a Vet to Vet, Appellee. No. 05-08-00115-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. December 16, 2009. Rehearing Overruled March 17, 2010. *557 Mike M. Tabor, Kevin Haynes, C., Shannon, Gracey, Ratliff & Miller, LLP,

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MATRIX PARENT, INC.; H.I.G. ) MOBILE, L.P.; H.I.G. EUROPE ) MIDDLE MARKET LBO FUND, L.P.; ) C.A. No. N23C-10-212 MAA CCLD H.I.G. MIDDLE MARKET LBO FUND ) III, L.P.; H.I.G. TECHNOLOGY ) PARTNERS A, L.P.; H.I.G. ) TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS B, L.P.; ) AND H.I.G. MATRIX COINVESTORS, ) L.P., ) Plaintiffs, ) )

732 N.E.2d 1137 (2000) 315 Ill. App.3d 179 247 Ill.Dec. 805 TRI-STATE COACH LINES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, v. METROPOLITAN PIER AND EXPOSITION AUTHORITY, a body politic and municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant. No. 1-98-3322. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division. <

OPINION SWEET, District Judge. Plaintiffs Idea Italiana s.r.l. (“Idea” or “Idea Italiana”) and Helios International S.A.R.L. (“Helios”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have moved pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 56.1 for partial summary judgment on their claims of conversion of 112 pieces of Cantamessa jewelry (the “Jewelry”) by Defendants Cantamessa USA,

El Juez Asociado Señor Negrón García emitió la opinión del Tribunal. La industria de la construcción, tanto privada como gu-bernamental, ha sido medular en nuestro desarrollo econó-mico y social. Más que cláusulas frías, sus contratos de obra se traducen en empleos y salarios que toman formas arquitectónicas en viviendas, escuelas, hospitales, centros comunales y otros. Estos recursos nos permiten

MEMORANDUM & ORDER REAGAN, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Exhaust Unlimited, Inc.’s (“Exhaust”) “Motion to Certify Class” (Doc. 174) as to Count One of their class action complaint filed against Defendants Cintas Corporation, Steiner Corporation, Mission Linen Supply, G & K Services, Inc., AmeriPride Services, Inc., National Services Industries, Inc., Uni-

PIERCE, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff BAII Banking Corporation appeals from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in favor of defendants UPG, Incorporated and Internorth Incorporated, which dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, in accordance with a jury verdict, following a trial before Louis L. Stanton, Judge.

252 F.Supp.2d 962 (2002) GLOW INDUSTRIES, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. Jennifer LOPEZ, Coty, Inc., a corporation and Does 1-20, inclusive, Defendants. No. CV 02-06167 MMM (PJWx). United States District Court, CD. California, Western Division. December 18, 2002. *963 *964

OPINION HORN, Judge. SUMMARY Plaintiff, a former United States Navy Lieutenant, brought this cause of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2) (Supp. I *351983), requesting relief pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a) (Supp. I 1983). In the complaint filed with the United States Claims Court, the plaintiff seeks an award

The plaintiff moves for a new trial, first, upon the ground that the learned Judge who tried the cause erred in permitting the defendant to introduce, in evidence to the jury, a certain mortgage, the validity of which was not involved in this suit, executed by one Jennison, under whom the plaintiff claims title to the personal property in question. This mortgage was of Jennison's farm, and was executed in May, 1861, to his nephew, H.C. Gardner. The plaintiff objected, that as this mo