Cases

7/8/2021 10:09:43 AM Compare Results Old File: New File: 18-956.pdf 18-956_new.pdf versus 62 pages (323 KB) 62 pages (308 KB)

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

5/3/2021 12:16:35 PM Compare Results Old File: New File: 18-956.pdf 18-956_new.pdf versus 62 pages (323 KB) 62 pages (321 KB)

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

4/6/2021 10:15:22 AM Compare Results Old File: New File: 18-956.pdf 18-956_new.pdf versus 62 pages (323 KB) 62 pages (322 KB)

ORDER FEUERSTEIN, District Judge. On June 29, 2012, plaintiff Jonathan Landow (“plaintiff’) commenced this action against defendants Wachovia Securities, LLC (“Wachovia”), Wells Fargo Ad-visors, LLC (“Wells Fargo”), Robert William Eddy (“Eddy”), George M. Gordon III (“Gordon”), Walter R. Anderson (“Anderson”) and Walter Randolph *111Anderson, Jr. (

John A. Gibney, Jr., United States District Judge The plaintiff, BHR Recovery Communities, Inc. d/b/a Broad Highway Recovery ("Broad Highway"), operates an addiction recovery business in Richmond, Virginia. Broad Highway alleges that Top Seek, LLC ("Top Seek"), and numerous unidentified defendants tried to steal some of Broad Highway's customers. Allegedly, the defendants secretly changed the phone number on Broad Highway's Google b

MEMORANDUM OPINION Paul W. Grimm, United States District Judge The litigation history between the Intellectual Ventures companies (Plaintiffs, Counter-Defendants, Third-Party Defendants, and Joined Counter-Defendants to this action;, collectively referred to as “IV”) and the Capital One companies (Defendants, Counterclaimants, and Third-Party Plaintiffs' in this action; co

MEMORANDUM OPINION T.S. ELLIS, III, District Judge. The remaining, but still numerous, defendants 1 in this multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) patent infringement action have filed a consolidated motion to dismiss that raises, inter alia, the following two important and potentially dispositive questions: (1) Whether the patent at issue,

MEMORANDUM OPINION PAUL W. GRIMM, District Judge. This patent litigation concerns four patents 1 that Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants *509Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC (together, “Intellectual Ventures companies” or “IV”) own and claim Defendants/Counterclaimants

Patent Infringement Claim; Helmet-Mounted Display System; F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft; Motion Tracking Technology; 35 U.S.C. § 101; Patent Eligibility Analysis. OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS WHEELER, Judge. Plaintiff Thales Visionix, Inc. (“TVI”) is a Maryland corporation an

505 F.Supp.2d 321 (2007) Kurt G. SCHLEGEL, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant. Civil No. 3:07cv00022. United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Charlottesville Division. June 12, 2007. *322 *323 Kurt G. Schlegel, Charlottesville, VA, pro se. Megan Conway Rahman, Stephen A

OPINION Slomsky, District Judge TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.;.277 II. BACKGROUND...277 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW.. .279 IV. ANALYSIS...280 *277A. Plaintiff Has Not Plausibly Alleged a Claim of Copyright Infringement Against Fox Defendants.. .280</

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO DISMISS THELTON E. HENDERSON, United States District Judge Presently before the Court is Defendant Facebook, Inc.’s (“Facebook”) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ consolidated class action complaint. ECF No. 46 (“Mot.”). Plaintiffs timely opposed the motion, ECF No. 54 (“Opp’n”), and Facebook timely replied, .ECF No. 56 (“Reply”); Facebook als

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 13 WILLIAM H. ORRICK, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Robert Frenzel brings this putative class action against defendant Aliph-Com dba Jawbone (“Jawbone”), alleging that he was fraudulently induced to purchase a Jawbone UP fitness-tracker wristband by misrepresentations regarding the product’s batt

Kimberly J. Mueller, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE In this order the court resolves four issues reserved by the parties or raised by the parties by motion following the jury verdict handed down on May 22, 2018. ECF No. 497. Specifically, the court addresses the following: a limitation of liability clause in a contract between Copart, Inc. and Sparta Consulting, Inc.; Copart's equitable unjust enrichment and California Unfair Competi

[Cite as Hopkins v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 2026-Ohio-936.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA DAVID HOPKINS, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 115301 v. :

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Thomas D. Schroeder, United States District Judge TABLE OF CONTENTS I.FINDINGS OF FACT... 332 A. North Carolina Voting Laws... 332 1. Voter ID... 332 2. Early Voting... 332 3. Out-of-Precinct Provisional Voting... 334

Re Document Nos.: 114, 116, 119, 128 MEMORANDUM OPINION Granting In Part and Denying In Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting In Part and Denying In Part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment; Denying Defendant’s Motion to Strike; and Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine RUDOLPH CONTRERAS,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ANEESA JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 25-cv-1540 (CRC) GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, et al. Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Israel’s retaliatory offensive in Gaza following Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on the country roiled American co