Cases

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE WEBSTER BANK NA, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. WILLIAM D. MUTKA, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 20-0128 FILED 2-9-2021 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2017-002343 The Honorable Teresa A.

ORDER LEGROME D. DAVIS, District Judge. AND NOW, this 17th day of September, 2013, upon consideration of Defendant Santander Consumer USA Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. No. 14), Plaintiffs Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 20), and Defendant’s Reply Brief in Support (Doc. No. 25), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. Dismissal for failure

ORDER JAMES D. WHITTEMORE, District Judge. BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Dkt. 55). Plaintiff responded in opposition (Dkt. 81), and Defendant was granted leave to file a reply (Dkt. 86). Upon consideration, the motion is GRANTED, because the undisputed facts demonstrate that Defendant conducted a reasonable investigation of Plaintiffs dispute, as required

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RICHARD H. KYLE, District Judge. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Cruz Johnson alleges in this action that Defendant Colleeto, Inc., d/b/a EOS CCA (“EOS”) violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation after he disputed a debt EOS reported to a credit-reporting agency. Presently b

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER MAE A. D’AGOSTINO, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On May 1, 2014, Plaintiff commenced this action pro se pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. See Dkt. No.

Allyne R. Ross, United States District Judge Radames Duran ("plaintiff") brings this action against La Boom Disco, Inc. ("defendant") for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227. Plaintiff claims that defendant, a nightclub in Queens, N.Y., sent him numerous text messages

OPINION AND ORDER KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge: Plaintiff Ahron Braun (“Braun”), proceeding pro se, brings this Action against Defendant Client Services Inc. (“Client Services”), alleging that Defendant imper-missibly accessed his credit report in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Compl

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER LAWRENCE E. KAHN, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On January 12, 2012, Plaintiff Terri L. Thorpe (“Plaintiff’), a resident of Tioga County, New York commenced this action pro se. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). Plaintiff names Piedmont Airlines, Inc. (“Piedmont”), Ronald Hynes (“Hynes”), William Rocco (“Rocco”), and Michelle Foose (“Foose”) a

MEMORANDUM STENGEL, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION This is a case, about litigation abuser— namely, the misuse of lawsuits for the improper purpose of harassment, delay, and obstruction. A few years ago, two. class actions were filed against GEICO General Insurance Company.in Washington state court. Not surprisingly, as in any litigation, a dispute arose about the u

OPINION AND ORDER KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge: Patricia J. Ritchie (“Plaintiff’) filed the instant Complaint against Ricardo Brown (“Brown”); Robert Taylor (“Taylor”); John Does 1-50 (“John Doe Defendants”) (collectively, “Individual Defendants”); Lease Finance Group, LLC (“LFG”); and Northern Leasing Systems, Inc. (“NLS”) (collectively, “Corporate Defendants”) (collectively, “Defendants”)

JUSTICE McKINNON delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Appellants own properties in and around the town of Opportunity, Montana. Opportunity is a rural community a few miles east of a former copper smelter operated by the Anaconda Company. Appellee Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) is the successor in interest to the Anaconda Company. During smelting operations,

In the Matter of AutoFlex Fleet, Inc., No. 0539, September Term 2022. Opinion by Zic, J. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS – JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS BY THE CIRCUIT COURT A court reviewing an administrative decision does not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice, then remanding, when the adjudicative facts concern events that occurred after the agency issues its decision. Under Md. Rule 7-208(c), a circuit court may consider evidence outside the administrative re

In the Matter of AutoFlex Fleet, Inc., No. 0539, September Term 2022. Opinion by Zic, J. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS – JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS BY THE CIRCUIT COURT A court reviewing an administrative decision does not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice, then remanding, when the adjudicative facts concern events that occurred after the agency issues its decision. Under Md. Rule 7-208(c), a circuit court may consider evidence outside the administrative re

In the Matter of AutoFlex Fleet, Inc., No. 0539, September Term 2022. Opinion by Zic, J. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS – JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS BY THE CIRCUIT COURT A court reviewing an administrative decision does not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice, then remanding, when the adjudicative facts concern events that occurred after the agency issues its decision. Under Md. Rule 7-208(c), a circuit court may consider evidence outside the administrative re

In the Matter of AutoFlex Fleet, Inc., No. 0539, September Term 2022. Opinion by Zic, J. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS – JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS BY THE CIRCUIT COURT A court reviewing an administrative decision does not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice, then remanding, when the adjudicative facts concern events that occurred after the agency issues its decision. Under Md. Rule 7-208(c), a circuit court may consider evidence outside the administrative re

92 Cal.Rptr.2d 351 (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 79 Theresa AGUILAR et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY et al., Defendants and Appellants. No. D030628. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One. January 31, 2000. Review Granted May 17, 2000. *358 Cohelan & Kho