Cases

35 F.Supp.2d 200 (1999) Deirdre MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX CHECK SERVICES, INC., Defendant. No. 3:96CV2410 (GLG). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. January 27, 1999. *201 Joanne S. Faulkner, New Haven, Connecticut, for plaintiff. David L. Hartsell, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, Patricia J. Campa

405 F.Supp.2d 1177 (2005) Daniel ROYBAL and Vida Roybal, Plaintiffs, v. EQUIFAX, Transunion, Experian, Rickenbacker, Medamerica, City Towing Body Shop, Inc., Sears, and Does 1 through 50, Defendants. No. CIV S 05-1207MCEKLM. United States District Court, E.D. California. October 19, 2005. *1178 Nathaniel Dale Potratz, Law Offices

McMurray, Presiding Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the affirmance of the trial court’s imposition of the .ultimate sanction of dismissal for plaintiff’s failure to answer interrogatories and failure to appear at a properly noticed deposition. I do not approve of self-help in the form of complete nonresponsiveness to discovery, since the Civil Practice Act contains provisions for protective orders.

Smith, Judge. Appellant Equifax Services, Inc. (Equifax) brought suit against competitor Examination Management Services, Inc. (EMSI) and former employee Edward A. Edge for claims related to the taking and misappropriation of certain lists of customers and “foreign correspondents” by former Equifax employees hired away by EMSI.1 Count 1 alleged breach of contract by Edge of a nondisclosure agreemen

510 F.Supp.2d 638 (2007) Brenda Lyn JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 06-0128-BH-M. United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division. May 31, 2007. *639 *640 *641 *642

McHugh, United States District Judge This action arises under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Plaintiff Thomas Edwards is a Pennsylvania resident who initiated this action in state court, alleging that Defendant Equifax violated FCRA by failing to provide contact information for entities that accessed his credit information. Equifax removed the case, and now seeks to transfer it some eight hundred miles south to the Northern D

456 F.Supp.2d 1082 (2006) Eunice MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 4:05CV1545RWS. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. October 11, 2006. *1083 *1084 *1085 Blair K. Drazic, Blair K. Drazi

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motions granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff was employed by defendant Polish Union of America (Polish Union) for a period of nine months, until June 1989. In 1991 plaintiff applied for employment with Royal Neighbors of America (Royal Neighbors), which engaged defendant Equifax Services, Inc. (Equifax), a retail credit investigative reporting company, to conduct a background check on p

463 F.Supp. 352 (1978) EQUIFAX, INC., v. A. D. LUSTER, David Wilkens & Mike Kinard, Farmer's Seafood Company, Inc., Bank of Northeast Arkansas, First National Bank of Poinsett County, Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company, First Security Bank of Searcy, Paul L. Simpson & Norma Simpson. No. J-78-C-74. United States District Court, E. D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division. November 9,

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1120 Doc: 60 Filed: 07/22/2025 Pg: 1 of 27 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1120 CPI SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff - Appellee, v. VIVINT SMART HOME, INC., f/k/a Mosaic Acquisition Corp.;

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) IN RE ALTABA, INC. ) C.A. No. 2020-0413-JTL ) OPINION Date Submitted: July 20, 2021 Date Decided: October 8, 2021 Paul J. Lockwood, Arthur R. Bookout, Matthew P. Majarian, Kathryn S. Bartolacci, Gregory P. Ranzini, SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER &

SECOND DIVISION MILLER, P. J., RICKMAN and REESE, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules March

ROBIN L. ROSENBERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Piper Aircraft, Inc.'s ("Piper") Motion for Summary Judgment.1 See DE 98. Plaintiffs responded, DE 111, and Piper replied, DE 128. The Court held a hearing on March 21, 2018. Having considered all relevant filings in this matter, Piper's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 98] is GRA

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER * ANALISA TORRES, United States District Judge Plaintiff, Josephine James Edwards,1 brings this class action lawsuit against Defendant, Hearst Communications, Inc., alleging violations of the Michigan Video Rental Privacy Act, H.B. 5331, 84th Leg., Reg. Sess., P.A. No. 378, § 2 (Mich. 1988) (amended 2016) (“VRPA”), and unjust enri

OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT J. JONKER, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff noticed his credit report reflected a delinquency on his car loan. He notified Experian (and the other consumer reporting agencies) that this had to be a mistake because he had settled his dispute with the lender. The FCRA requires consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”) like Experian to reinvestigate items a consumer disput

HOLMES, Circuit Judge. Husky Ventures, Inc. ("Husky") sued B55 Investments Ltd. ("B55") and its president, Christopher McArthur, for breach of contract and tortious interference under Oklahoma law. In response, B55 filed counterclaims against Husky. 1 After a trial,

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DE 23) ANTHONY P. PATTI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE I. OPINION A. The Court’s Opinion, Order and Judgment This case is brought pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). The parties to this case — Plaintiff on her own behalf and Defendant via counsel — appeared for t

MEMORANDUM OPINION COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff Gennaro Mattiaccio, who is proceeding pro se, filed suit on July 30, 2012, alleging defamation by Defendants Am-rote 1 Getu, David Hale, and DHA Group, Inc. (“DHA”). See Comp

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge: Defendants, Sturm Foods, Inc., and its parent company Treehouse Foods, Inc., manufactured single-serve coffee cups for use in Keurig machines and marketed them under the name Grove Square Coffee (“GSC”). The eight named Plaintiffs each purchased GSC, but were extremely unsatisfied with their purchase. They claim that Defendants packaged, marketed, distrib

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL. SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge Plaintiffs Shannon Campbell (“Campbell”) and Mark Ennis (“Ennis”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have brought a diversity action against defendants Feld Entertainment, Inc. (“FEI”), operator of the Ringling Bros, and Barnum