Cases

NEALON, J., Two former servers at local Red Robin restaurants have instituted this class action lawsuit asserting violations of the minimum wage provisions of the Minimum Wage Act of 1968 (“MWA”), 42 RS. § 333.102 et seq. The MWA permits employers to satisfy their minimum wage obligation of $7.25/hour to “tipped employees” by paying a minimum wage of $2.83/hour and utilizing a “tip credit” in the amount of $4.4

Kramer v Bailey Rest. Group. Inc. (2024 NY Slip Op 00025) Kramer v Bailey Rest. Group. Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 00025 Decided on January 04, 2024 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

MEMORANDUM OPINION COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, District Judge. Plaintiffs Freddy Gonzales Arencibia, Hamid Guerch, Khalid Chabar, Carlos E. Parra, and Wilson Martinez (“Plaintiffs”), 1 filed this action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.,

*448 OPINION AND ORDER ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: I. Overview In this action, Plaintiffs, current and former employees of the restaurant known as Fresco by Scotto, allege that Defendants, Starjem Restaurant Corp. (d/b/a Fresco by Scotto), Marion Scotto, and Anthony Scotto, violated the Fair Labor Standards A

Case: 14-20202 Document: 00513174147 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/28/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 14-20202 August 28, 2015

No. 01-14-00707-CV IN THE FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS FIRST COURT OF APPEALS 10/30/2015 1:52:16 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE at HOUSTON, TEXAS Clerk –––––––––

WINTER, Circuit Judge: Safelite Group, Inc., and its subsidiary, insurance-claims administrator Safelite Solutions LLC, (collectively “Safelite”), appeal from a denial of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Connecticut’s Public Act 13-67 (“PA 13-67”), “An Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work.” Safelite claims that the Act violates the First Amendment because it is an i

2025 IL 130862 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (Docket No. 130862, 130863 cons.) MELISSA ANDREWS v. CARBON ON 26th, LLC, et al. (Martin Produce, Inc., Appellee, v. Jack Tuchten Wholesale Produce, Inc., et al.,

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1155 Doc: 74 Filed: 06/25/2024 Pg: 1 of 24 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1155 68TH STREET SITE WORK GROUP, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ALBAN TRACTOR CO., INCORPORATED; C & I LEASING INCORPORATED; RUKERT TERMINA

LAURIE J. MICHELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Doxing, short for "dropping documents," is the practice of disclosing a person's identifying information (e.g., their home address) on the Internet to retaliate against and harass the "outed" person. This opinion addresses an issue of first impression: when a defendant drops a plaintiff's documents on the Internet, does the defendant's doxing amount to constitutionally minimum cont

STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Vermont Unit Docket No. 32-3-14 Vtec DECISION IN ON-THE-RECORD Zaremba Group Dollar General CU Permit APPEAL This on-the-record proceeding relates to a proposal by Zaremba Program Developme

February 14, 2023 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3 346 Conn. 33 FEBRUARY, 2023 33 Connecticut Dermatology Group, PC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. CONNECTICUT DERMATOLOGY GROUP, PC, ET AL. v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL. (SC 20695) Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auri

James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration, filed March 2, 2017 (Doc. 5)("Motion"). The Court held a hearing on July 12, 2017. The primary issues are: (i) whether the parties' Arbitration Agreement is illusory, which depends on whether Defendant Red Lobster Restaurants, LLC ("Red Lobster") provided consideration; (ii) whether ask

PITTMAN, Judge. This appeal arises from a dispute stemming from a lease contract entered into between Medical Park Station, LLC (“the lessor”), and Southern Food Services, LLC, whose position as lessee under that contract was later assumed by 72 Madison, LLC (“the assignee”). The assignee sued the lessor in April 2014, seeking reformation of the lease contract and an award of compensatory and punitive damages, on theories of

No. 11 May 2, 2024 225 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM - OREGON, Petitioner on Review, v. Thomas BROWN, Respondent on Review, and Maria Del Carmen Espindola GOMEZ, Respondent on Review. (CC 15CV23066) (CA A169544) (SC S070082)

No. 11 May 2, 2024 225 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM - OREGON, Petitioner on Review, v. Thomas BROWN, Respondent on Review, and Maria Del Carmen Espindola GOMEZ, Respondent on Review. (CC 15CV23066) (CA A169544) (SC S070082)

(2008) Reverend Anthony FEACHER, and Brenda Feacher, Plaintiffs, v. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP, its employees, agents and/or servants, Manager Timothy Brown, and John Doe Owner, Richard Roe Restaurant Manager, Vista Property Management, its employees, agents and/or servants, Arena Hotel, its employees, agents and/or servants, and Holiday Inn, its employees, agents and/or servants, Jane Doe (1-5) and John Doe (1-5), Defendants.

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3352 ___________________________ Telescope Media Group, a Minnesota corporation; Carl Larsen; Angel Larsen, the founders and owners of Telescope Media Group Plaintiffs - Appellants v.

ORDER Honorable John J. Tuchi, United States District Judge At issue is Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 70, Mot. Summ. J.), to which Defendant filed a Response (Doc. 73, Resp.), and Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. 75, Reply). Because the parties’ briefs were adequate for the Court to resolve the issues arising in Plaintiffs Motion, the Court finds this matter appropriate for decision