Cases

167 Cal.App.4th 466 (2008) PACIFIC SUNWEAR OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. OLAES ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant and Respondent. No. D051391. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One. October 9, 2008. *469 Gordon & Rees, Matthew D. Murphey, Kimberly D. Howatt and Steven Lawson for Plaintiff

*137OPINION By the Court, Becker, J.: These consolidated petitions for extraordinary relief challenge the district courts’ refusals to dismiss actions brought under Nevada’s False Claims Act (FCA) and present issues of first im*138pression in Nevada. Petitioners assert that t

137 B.R. 778 (1992) In re 199Z, INC., a California corporation, Debtor. James J. JOSEPH, Chapter 7 Trustee for the Estate of 199Z, Inc., Debtor, Plaintiff, v. 1200 VALENCIA, INC., a California corporation, Ocean Pacific Sunwear, Ltd., a California limited partnership, Republic Factors Corp., a California corporation, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. SA 90-08746 JR, Adv. No. SA 91-3981 JR. United States B

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERT H. JACOBVITZ, United States Bankruptcy Judge THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion of Ramada Worldwide, Inc. Pursuant to Rule 3018(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure for Temporary Allowance of Claim for the Purpose of Voting to Accept or Reject the Plan (“Motion for Temporary Allowance of Claim”). See Docket No. 190. At the final hearing on the Motio

Re: D.I. 789 MEMORANDUM ORDER LAURIE SELBER SILVERSTEIN, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Before the Court is the Debtors’ objection (the “Claim Objection”) .to class action proof of claim no. 1316 (the “Class Claim”) filed by Naylor Farms, Inc. and Harrel’s LLC (together, the “Putative Class Plaintiffs”) on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated claimants (collectively, t

637 F.Supp.2d 683 (2009) PHOENIX SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. SONY ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant. Sony electronics, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Intervoice, Inc., Third-Party Defendant. No. C 07-02112 MHP. United States District Court, N.D. California. June 5, 2009. *686 Olga Kay, Raymond Joseph Trojan, Dylan C. D

(2008) 800 ADEPT, INC., Plaintiff v. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, COMPANY, et al., Defendants. No. 5.07CV57. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Texarkana Division. February 11, 2008. MEMORANDUM ORDER DAVID FOLSOM, District Judge. The above-entitled and numbered civil action was heretofore referred to United States Magistrate Judge Car

Opinion HUFFMAN, J. In 1998 the Commission on State Mandates (Commission), established by the Legislature to determine when the state is constitutionally required to reimburse local governments and school districts for state-mandated costs, concluded costs associated with eight activities required of local governm

Opinion ELIA, J. After a jury trial, appellant Linear Technology Corporation (Linear) lost its suit for breach of statutory warranty against respondents Novellus *1530Systems, Inc. (Novellus), and Tokyo Electron Limited (TEL). Linear’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was unsuccessful, and the trial court awarded respondents attorney f

Opinion KRIEGLER, J. A landlord converted a rent-controlled apartment building to condominiums, obtained a new certificate of occupancy in 2009 based on the change in use, and raised the rent. When a tenant objected, the landlord sought a declaration from the court that the unit was exempt from local rent control ordinances under the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housi

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA ALLEN KIRZHNER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. S246444 Fourth Appellate District, Division Three G052551 Orange County Superior Court 30-2014-00744604 July 27, 2020 Justic

WESLEY, Circuit Judge: Defendants-Appellants American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (collectively, “American Express” or “Amex”) appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Garaufís, J.) dated February 19, 2015, finding that Amex unreasonably restrained trade in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, by enter

177 Cal.App.4th 408 (2009) JANE DOE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., as Attorney General, etc., Defendant and Respondent. No. D053982. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One. September 3, 2009. *412 Steven J. Carroll, Public Defender, and Laura Arnold, Deputy Public Defender, for Plaintiff

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE KILOH SMITH, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. TARGET CORPORATION, et al., Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0120 FILED 11-13-2025 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2024-025462 The Honorable M. S

Filed 3/3/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO SIRY INVESTMENT, L.P., B277750 (Consolidated with B279009 Plaintiff and Appellant, and B285904) v. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC372362) SAEED FARKHO

171 Cal.App.4th 1500 (2009) ROBERT J., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CATHERINE D., Defendant; JEFFREY C. FRITZ, Objector and Respondent. No. D051552. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One. March 11, 2009. *1503 Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, Charles A. Bird; Kolodny & Anteau and Ronald W. Ant

Filed 3/23/20 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO SIRY INVESTMENT, L.P., B277750 (Consolidated with B279009 Plaintiff and Appellant and B285904) v. (Los Angeles County

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, STATEMENT OF FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE, MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND OF NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING [DOC. 35] Sarah A. Hall, United States Bankruptcy Judge Plaintiff American Express Bank, FSB (“American Express”) seeks summary judgment on its claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (c) pursuant to the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment,

ORDER Appellee, United States of America, filed a petition for panel rehearing, or, in the alternative, for rehearing en banc. The panel that determined the appeal has considered the request for panel rehearing, and the active members of the Court have considered the request for rehearing en banc. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is denied.

15‐1672 United States v. American Express Company UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ______________ August Term, 2015 (Argued: December 17, 2015 Decided: September 26, 2016)