Cases

MEMORANDUM SURRICK, District Judge. Presently before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Pieter Johannis Leendert Okkerse, Wayne Blanchard, Frank Powers, and Bobby Hampton (ECF No. 25). For the following reasons, the Motion will be denied. I. BACKGROUND A. Procedural Background On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff, SKF USA, Inc.

632 F.Supp.2d 147 (2009) UNILOC USA, INC. and Uniloc Singapore Private Limited, Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. C.A. No. 03-440 S. United States District Court, D. Rhode Island. March 16, 2009. *149 Andria Colette, Francis A. Connor, Sheri L. Pizzi, III, Taylor, Duane, Barton & Gilman, LLP, Providence, RI, Dea

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M3 USA CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 20-2903 (RDM) v. SUMMER QAMOUM, et al., Defendants. AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Amending the memorandum opinion and order filed on June 4, 2021)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M3 USA CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 20-2903 (RDM) v. SUMMER QAMOUM, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff M3 USA Corporation (“M3”) brings this action against two of its former emp

794 F.Supp. 844 (1991) WRIGHT-MOORE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. RICOH CORPORATION, Defendant. Civ. No. F 86-35. United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. December 10, 1991. *845 *846 Philip A. Whistler, Fred R. Biesecker, Ice Miller Donadio & Ryan, Indianapolis, Ind.,

HALLER, J. *354The Orange County Water District (District) was created by the California Legislature to protect and manage groundwater supplies within its territory, which covers most of Orange County, California. The District and other regulatory agencies have long been aware of localized groundwater contamination caused by hazardous substan

ORDER WILLIAM H. STEELE, Chief Judge. This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. 3). The Motion has been extensively briefed and is now ripe for disposition. I. Relevant Background. The case of Larry Crouch, et al. v. Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc., Civil No. 10-0072-KD-N (the “Crouch Action”), was something o

OPINION THOMAS, Chief Judge: These consolidated antitrust actions arise out of an agreement (“Promotion Agreement”) between Netflix and Wal-mart 1 whereby Walmart transferred its online DVD-rental subscribers to Netflix, and Netflix agreed to promote Walmart’s DVD sales business. The plaintiffs,

Revised March 8, 1999 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 96-41206 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, VERSUS RANDALL ELWOOD GOURLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the Uni

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge REYNA. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge DYK. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge O’MALLEY, with whom PROST, Chief Judge, LOURIE and DYK, Circuit Judges, join. REYNA, Circuit Judge. Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”), declares certain acts unlawful. Among

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GUSTAVO A. GELPI, District Judge. On December 17, 2012 and April 17, 2013, Defendants filed two motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process or in the alternative, to transfer to the Northern District of Illinois. The court referred the motions to Magistrate Judge McGiverin for a report and recommendation. Judg

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE DAVID ALAN EZRA, Senior District Judge. On April 5, 2013, the Court heard oral argument on the Motion to Transfer Venue to the District of New Jersey filed by Defendant Derma Sciences, Inc. (“Derma Sciences”). (Doc. #15 (“Mot.”).) Saul Perloff, Esq., Katharyn A. Grant, Esq., and Bob Rouder, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Healthpoint Ltd.

727 F.Supp.2d 782 (2010) Todd JANSON, Gerald T. Ardrey, Chad M. Ferrell, and C & J Remodeling LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., Defendant. Case No. 2:10-4018-CV-C-NKL. United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Central Division. July 27, 2010. *784 David T. B

DeMOSS, Circuit Judge: Randall Gourley raises numerous objections to his conviction and sentences on three drug-related offenses. We affirm. I. Along with several other defendants, Randall Gourley was charged and tried on three drug-related counts: conspiracy to import over five kilograms of cocaine (21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(b)(1

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER VIRGINIA M. KENDALL, District Judge. Plaintiff Intercon Solutions, Inc. is a California-based provider of e-recycling services that operates an e-recycling facility in Illinois. Defendant Basel Action Network (“BAN”) is a non-profit Seattle-based corporation that certifies businesses that provide e-recycling services. Inter-con alleges that BAN and its founder an

662 F.Supp.2d 821 (2009) Joseph HIGE, Plaintiff, v. TURBONETICS HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant. Case No. 09-cv-10025. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. September 11, 2009. *824 William S. Dobreff, Dobreff & Dobreff, Warren, MI, for Plaintiff. Christopher R. Gura, Gene J. Esshaki, Abbott, Nichol

593 F.3d 660 (2010) MIDWEST TITLE LOANS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David H. MILLS, Director of the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions, Defendant-Appellant. No. 09-2083. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued November 10, 2009. Decided January 28, 2010. *661 Stanley C. Fickle (argued)

OPINION OF THE COURT STAPLETON, Circuit Judge: Appellee Hadis Nafar (“Nafar”) filed a class action complaint against appellant Hollywood Tanning Systems, Inc. (“Hollywood Tans”), stating claims for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”), fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of warranty, and injunctive relief, alleging that Hollywood Tans distorts the benefits of indoor tanning and deceptively

OPINION OF THE COURT STAPLETON, Circuit Judge: Appellee Hadis Nafar (“Nafar”) filed a class action complaint against appellant Hollywood Tanning Systems, Inc. (“Hollywood Tans”), stating claims for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”), fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of warranty, and injunctive relief, alleging that Hollywood Tans distorts the benefits of indoor tanning and deceptively

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THOMAS W. PHILLIPS, District Judge. I. Introduction This matter is before the Court on Defendant Wilson Senior Care, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 4] and Defendant Heritage Healthcare, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue *921[Doc. 6]. For the reasons stated herein,