Cases

439 F.Supp.2d 418 (2006) Charles MANNO and Susan E. Manno, h/w, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE CO., Defendant. No. 05-CV-1222. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. July 12, 2006. *419 *420 *421 Jack M. Bernard, Philadelphia, PA, for Pla

717 F.Supp.2d 1251 (2010) Scott CARRUTHERS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION, Defendant. Case No. 4:10cv7-RH/WCS. United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division. June 3, 2010. *1252 Douglas S. Lyons, Lyons & Farrar PA, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiff. Daniel J. Kissane, David Andrew Cor

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS DAVID O. CARTER, District Judge. Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) filed by Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, Chase Home Finance LLC, and Chase Home Finance Inc. (Dkt. 15). After considering the moving, opposing, and replying papers, as well as supplemental briefs, the Court GRANTS IN

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, Senior District Judge2. This Memorandum Opinion now addresses the appeals of final judgments of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (“the Bankruptcy Court”) related to the United States Bankruptcy Code Chapter 11 reorganization of Appellee W.R. Grace & Co., et al. (“Grace”).

758 F.Supp. 1120 (1991) PETRA INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP., Plaintiff, v. FIRST AMERICAN BANK OF VIRGINIA, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 90-829-A. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. March 1, 1991. *1121 *1122 Charles Douglas Welty, Arlington, Va., for Petra Inte

436 F.Supp.2d 873 (2006) In re: THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY SECURITIES LITIGATION. No. 5:03 CV 2166, 1:03 CV 2294, 1:03 CV 2344, 5:03 CV 2168, 5:03 CV 2176, 5:03 CV 2188, 5:03 CV 2192, 5:03 CV 2203, 5:03 CV 2210, 5:03 CV 2227, 5:03 CV 2233, 5:03 CV 2285-5:03 CV 2287, 5:03 2297-5:03 CV 2299, 5:03 CV 2443, 5:03 CV 2447, 5:03 CV 2592. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.</

646 F.Supp.2d 870 (2008) Michael S. MARCUM, Plaintiff v. G.L.A. COLLECTION COMPANY, INC. et. al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 07-370-KSF. United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, at Lexington. June 4, 2008. *871 Michael B. Fox, Fox Law Office, Olive Hill, KY, Reid Allen Glass, Grayson, KY, for Plaintiff.

394 U.S. 131 (1969) CITIZEN PUBLISHING CO. ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. No. 243. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 15, 1969. Decided March 10, 1969. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. *132 Richard J. MacLaury argued the cause for appellants. With him on the b

CARDAMONE, Circuit Judge: The case before us presents the sole issue of whether a particular New York State insurance regulation and a report concerning appellant prepared by the State of New York’s Insurance Department (Department) constitute state regulation of an employee benefit plan preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-

411 F.Supp. 133 (1975) Joan M. HARRIMAN et al., Plaintiffs, v. E. I. DU PONT de NEMOURS AND COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 4721. United States District Court, D. Delaware. December 23, 1975. *134 *135 *136

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PRINCIPAL GROWTH STRATEGIES, ) LLC, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2019-0431-JTL ) AGH PARENT LLC, et al., ) )

659 F.3d 622 (2011) Kristine P. PURCELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 10-3975. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued September 8, 2011. Decided October 3, 2011. *623 R. John Wray, Attorney, Wray Law Office, Fort Wayne, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Lawren

674 F.Supp.2d 1095 (2009) Keith ORI, Plaintiff, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, and Fiserv, Inc., Defendant. Case No. 08CV0432. United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. December 14, 2009. Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates PC, Chicago, IL, Bryan K. McMinn, Long and Gonzalez, Maitland, FL, Michael L. Roberts, Roberts Law Firm PA, Little Rock, AR, Shpetim Ademi, David J. Syr

AMENDED MEMORANDUM . AND ORDER ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge: Pending before the Court are five motions filed by Defendant Kmart Corporation (“Kmart”): a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Based on Payers Definitions of Usual and Customary Price (Doc. 204); a Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Dale A. Chamberlain (Doc. 212); a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Based on Claims in Other Than

[Cite as Lawless v. Lawrence Cty. Bd. of Edn., 2020-Ohio-117.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAWRENCE COUNTY TERESA LAWLESS, : Case No. 18CA25 Plaintiff-Appellee/ : Cross-Appellant, : v.

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JOSEPH C. BAMFORD and YOUNG MIN ) BAN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2019-0005-JTL ) PENFOLD, L.P.; DELAWARE VALLEY ) REGIONAL CENTER, LLC

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE GB-SP HOLDINGS, LLC, on behalf of itself ) and derivatively on behalf of ) BRIDGESTREET WORLDWIDE, INC., ) and DONAL KINSELLA, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 9413-VCF ) WAYNE R. WALKER,

ORDER MARY S. SCRIVEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 93) filed by Plaintiffs, Jason Herman, William Cohen, Joey Kratt, and Christina Lancaster, the Response in opposition thereto (Dkt. 99) filed by Defendant, SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Inc. (“SeaWorld”), and the Supplement (Dkt. 115) filed by Plaintiffs;

*1193ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION EDWARD J. LODGE, District Judge. On May 9, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams issued a Report and Recommendation in this matter, Dkt. 31. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties had fourteen days in which to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff filed

ORDER ON MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION ROBERT N. SCOLA, JR., District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Ruth Muzueo’s Motion for Class Certification [ECF No. 59]. For the reasons explained in this order, the Court finds that class certification is appropriate. Factual Background In this putative class-action lawsuit, Plaintiff ha