Cases

HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge: This action is an appeal from an Order Approving Additional Costs, dated September 22,1980, issued by the District Court in favor of plaintiffs (appellees). Appendix (“App.”) 110a. The disputed costs were awarded after appellees had prevailed in an action for wrongful death which resulted in a jury verdict and judgment in the amount of $392,300.0

481 F.Supp.2d 689 (2007) UNITED STATES of America ex. rel. Dr. Man Tai LAM, Dr. William Meshel, Plaintiffs, v. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP., Defendant. No. EP-02-CA-525-KC. United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division. March 28, 2007. *690 *691 Mitchell L. Weidenbach, Assistant United

KEARSE, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Qui Guan Di Zhang (“Zhang”), an alien who was not admitted to the United States and who is subject to removal by reason of his conviction of conspiracy to smuggle other aliens into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I) (Supp. II 1996), petitions under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (“INA” or the “Act”)

481 F.Supp.2d 673 (2006) UNITED STATES of America, ex. rel. Dr. Man Tai LAM, Dr. William Meshel, Plaintiffs, v. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP., Defendant. No. EP-02-CA-525-KC. United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division. August 15, 2006. *674 *675 *676

To Mr, Aire. I hcosWtj Clerk, of -Uve, Cour\- E0 &> frr.. LZi Qfr , Cqp i-U I SAcAio^ Jj1/ NJ atri^LS licT\.em DMiiJb %£tf.lita-ejc^ JS-flLa.f^ 0" »Bp-ratjio f-,kn»cti 4-Krf4- you Heni e.rl Me M y P- D.K .^n Ju

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA L D SEP 1 5 2014 ) C|e'rk, U'.§.`b'|'éf€l<`:t`§nd A1exander Otis Matthews, ) sankl’upl-'CV CO\-ll'f$ ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civ. Action No. !zl" ) Charles E. Samuels, Jr. et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks to bring a qui lam suit, see Compl. Caption, and moves to proceed in forma pauperis. "A pro se plaintiff may not file a qui tam action pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729

18-3580 Lin v. Shanghai City Corp. In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit August Term, 2019 (Argued: November 4, 2019 Decided: February 11, 2020) Docket No. 18‐3580‐cv _____________________________________________________________

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20‐3215 ERIC NYANDWI, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. ____________________ On Petition for Review

450 Submitted September 7, 2018, affirmed September 18, 2019 Gayle A. STERNBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bradley LECHMAN-SU, Defendant-Respondent. Multnomah County Circuit Court 110708916; A164881 450 P3d 37 In this legal-malpractice action, plain

2022 IL App (1st) 211482 No. 1-21-1482 Third Division September 7, 2022 ____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF

*643MEMORANDUM * Charlotte Bly-Magee appeals the district court’s dismissal of her third amended complaint in her second action (“Bly-Magee II”) brought under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729. We have jurisdiction to review the district court’s final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court dismissed Bly-Magee

177 F.3d 839 15 IER Cases 200, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3774 Paul GILBROOK; Michael Garrison; Don Herr; Hal Raphael;Dana Bowler; Joe Wilson, Plaintiffs-Appellees,Davis, Reno & Courtney, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee,v.CITY OF WESTMINSTER; Charles V. Smith; Craig Schweisinger;Tony Lam; Don S. Anderson; John T. Demonaco;Brian Mayhew, Defendants-Appellants.Paul Gilbrook; Michael Garr

% `E v\por‘c» Qn\ c§\m>_\\ . § _,, 4 q@,\@/!U'(c) /\sn.c>o'\-%\L¢L..@\~<>\w-Q» y D,N \'“V‘NO~ L'L° \\°‘A"\ "m ¢qunrRcE¢%E\\sY\E/m APPEALS» 4 ]UN 1 4 2915 w (\.pp\\c.c,r\°c~pf)e_o\s Mr>"r\z:>u\\ §'0(’~ "I\BDU 1 GY\\A gm (\?_Cufd& T\e_ (\?\<>noro\s\; Suz§qe_ §§ md G>m‘\. % comes nom ()\¢Sb‘ir)t . Q\émg§\ `\r\ ~\\\€ G\dz)\§e omA , v \ymlg M\ m ~.m\ wvm mma xvi ¢me<,. .

OPINION GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. This appeal raises the issue of whether the government’s consent is required before a private plaintiff (called a “relator”) may voluntarily dismiss a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1). The district court, over the government’s objection, dismissed with prejudice this FCA qui tam action based upon the relator’s and the

Opinion and Order on Discovery Motions MAURICE B. COHILL, JR., District Judge. The hearing on discovery issues originally set for February 12, 2007, has been rescheduled for March 11, 2008 in Erie, Pennsylvania. However, several of the outstanding disputes are capable of resolution without oral argument. The remaining disputed issues will be addressed at March 11, 2008 hearing.

180 F.Supp.2d 192 (2002) UNITED STATES ex rel. Kenneth FISHER, Plaintiff/Relator, v. NETWORK SOFTWARE ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 99-3095(PLF). United States District Court, District of Columbia. January 14, 2002. *193 Alan Mark Grayson, Ira Eliot Hoffman, Victor Aronoff Kubli, Grayson & Kubli, P.C.

ACCEPTED 15-25-00034-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/2/2025 2:56 PM No. 15-25-00034-CV CHRISTOPHE

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE THE STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) P'laintiff, ) ex rel. ) ) WILLIAM SEAN FRENCH, ) ) Plaintiff-Relator, ) C.A. No. N13C-06-289 PRW CCLD ) v. ) ) CARD COMPLIANT, LLC, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) Submitted: January 16, 2018 Decided: April 3(), 2018 MEMORAHDUM OPINION AND ORDER Upon Defendants ’ Motionfor Summary Judgment, DENIED. Thomas E. Brown, Esquire, Edward K. Black, Esquire (argued), Stephen G. MacDonald, Esquire, Deputy Attorneys General, Delaware

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO DEFINE BURDEN OF PROOF RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Petitioner Makah Indian Tribe (the “Makah”) (Dkt. #248), Motion for Summary Judgment by Respondents Quileute Indian Tribe (the “Quileute”) and Quinault Indian Nation (the “Quinault”) (Dkt. #251

17-2182-ag Manning v. Barr 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 ____________________ 4 5 August Term, 2018 6 7 (Argued: June 14, 2019 Decided: March 31, 2020) 8 9 Docket No. 17-2182-ag 10 11 ____________________ 12 13 KENNETH MANNING, AKA Anthony Man