Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION T.S. ELLIS, III, District Judge. At issue at the conclusion of this long-running TILA1 matter is the determination of a reasonable attorney’s fee for a TILA claimant who enjoyed only partial success. This determination requires resolution of the following three questions: (i) whether a TILA claimant who prevails on a § 1641(f

ORDER PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (the “Recommendation”) [Docket No. 30] filed on August 3, 2012. I. BACKGROUND The undisputed facts are as follows. On June 26, 2006, plaintiffs Michelle and Richard L. Garrett refinanced their home mortgage loan with defendant BNC Mortgage

OPINION AND ORDER Mark S. Davis, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD'GE This matter is before the Court on a motion seeking attorney’s fees1 and costs, ECF No. 43, and a motion for leave to file supplemental authority, ECF No. 56, filed by Plaintiff David D. Denton (“Plaintiff’). Plaintiffs motion for attorney’s fees and costs is filed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.

PER CURIAM: This case returns to the Court for the second time since 2013. After the September 2008 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (“Lehman”), Plaintiffs-Appellants (“Plaintiffs”) brought suit on behalf of a putative class, of former participants in an employee stock ownership plan (“ESOP”) invested exclusively in Lehman’s common stock. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants-Appellees (“Plan Committee Defendants”

ORDER SAM A. LINDSAY, District Judge. Before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”), filed on January 17, 2013 [Dkt. No. 26]. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge David L. Horan, who entered Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on April 26, 2013 [Dkt. No. 35], recommen

CIKLIN, C.J. The appellant, Bank of America, N.A., as Successor by Merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP (“the bank”), appeals an order vacating a final judgment of foreclosure and dismissing the bank’s complaint. We agree with the bank that the trial court erred in interpreting a notice requirement in a Florida debt collection statute as constituting a condition precedent to a mo

ORDER PATRICK J. SCHILTZ, District Judge. Plaintiffs James and Cheryl Wolff bring this action seeking to void the foreclosure of their mortgage and the subsequent sheriffs sale of their home. This matter is before the Court on the January 24, 2014 Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron. Judge Mayeron recommends granting defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ com

ORDER ON PENDING DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 34), filed on June 1, 2012, and Defendant Castle Stawiarski, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 43), filed on July 5, 2012. Plaintiffs Mark and Suzanne Henson filed their Response to Bank of America’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #40) on June

602 F.Supp.2d 454 (2009) Christopher SCHUH, et ano., Plaintiffs, v. DRUCKMAN & SINEL, LLP, et al., Defendants. No. 07 Civ. 366 (LAK)(GWG). United States District Court, S.D. New York. February 2, 2009. *456 John C. Klotz, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs. Blaise U-Shing Chow, Eric Corey Weissman, Geoffrey William Heineman,

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge: This case—the first criminal appeal related to the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) to reach this (or any) Court of Appeals—presents the question, among others, whether testimony given by an individual involuntarily under the legal compulsion of a foreign power may be used

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ [DKT. #170] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S [DKT. #174] CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT VANESSA L. BRYANT, District Judge. The Plaintiff, Fabiola Is Ra El Bey,1 proceeding pro se, brought this suit alleging violations of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et

15‐2229 In Re: Lehman Bros. Sec. and ERISA Litig. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ______________ August Term, 2015 (Argued: January 14, 2016 Decided: March 18, 2016) Docket No. 15‐2229 ____________

ACCEPTED 03-15-00085-CV 5176028 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

Matter of Attorneys Who are in Violation of Judiciary Law Section 468-a for Failing to Register (2025 NY Slip Op 01717) Matter of Attorneys Who are in Violation of Judiciary Law Section 468-a for Failing to Register 2025 NY Slip Op 01717 Decided on March 20, 2025 Appellate Di

588 F.Supp.2d 1132 (2008) In re COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION. No. CV-07-05295-MRP (MANx). United States District Court, C.D. California. December 1, 2008. *1142 OMNIBUS ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ALL PENDING REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE MARIANA R. PFAEL