Cases

OPINION AND ORDER1 BESOSA, District Judge. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”), (Docket No. 120), regarding defendants’ motions to dismiss: one filed by defendant AT & T Mobility, Inc. (“ATT-M”), (Docket No. 39), and the other, filed by AT & T, Inc. (“ATT-I”), (Docket No. 77). Having considered the magistrate judge’s recommendations

OPINION CLIFTON, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Robert Rodriguez filed a putative class action in state court, which Defendant removed to federal district court. Defendant contended that there was federal jurisdiction over the action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), Pub.L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), and in particular 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d

It is common practice among district judges in this circuit to make such a statement and adopt the magistrate judges' recommended dispositions when they find that magistrate judges have dealt with the issues fully and accurately and that they could add little of value to that analysis. We cannot interpret the district court's statement as establishing that it failed to perform the required de novo review. In re Griego<

Rodriguez v Target Corp. (2025 NY Slip Op 00688) Rodriguez v Target Corp. 2025 NY Slip Op 00688 Decided on February 5, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 4

AT&T Mobility Holdings B.V. v Grupo Salinas Telecom (2025 NY Slip Op 03860) AT&T Mobility Holdings B.V. v Grupo Salinas Telecom 2025 NY Slip Op 03860 Decided on June 26, 2025 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Ju

673 F.3d 1155 (2012) Marygrace CONEFF; Christine Aschero; Joanne Aschero; Alex Aschero; Jennie Bragg; Gina Franks; Amy Frerker; Addie Christine Lowry; Steven Shulman; S. Leonard Shulman; Michelle Johns; Steven Knott; Liesa Krausse; Devin Gilker; Stephen Papaleo; Andrew Rudich; and Kelly Petersen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AT & T CORP., Defendant, and New Cingular Wireless Services,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SAYLOR, United States District Judge This action arises out of ah incident at an AT&T store in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at the Cambridgeside Galleria. Plaintiff Richard Strahan, who is proceeding pro se, alleges that when he went into the AT&T store to pay his wireles

728 F.Supp.2d 31 (2010) Miguel SANCHEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. AT & T WIRELESS, Defendant. Civil No. 07-2237 (FAB). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. August 5, 2010. *34 Juan R. Gonzalez-Munoz, Gonzalez Munoz Law Office, Maria Elena Margarida-Franco, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff. Enrique J. Mendoza-Mendez,

[Cite as Rodriguez v. Catholic Charities Corp., 2022-Ohio-1317.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 110743 v. : CATHOLIC CHARITIES

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 23a0041p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ KATHRYN RODRIGUEZ, │ Plaintiff-Appellant, │

Affirmed and Opinion Filed March 11, 2024 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00004-CV ADAM WELLS, Appellant V. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, D/B/A AT&T TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dall

Justice GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court. *716 This case grows from a fight over a tax refund. But the question we face isn't who gets the money, only how to decide the dispute. Should federal courts rely on state law, together with any applicable federal rules, or should they devi

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan join, dissenting. The Federal Arbitration Act says that an arbitration agreement “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U. S. C. §2 (emphasis added). California law sets forth certain circumstances in which “class action waive

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan join, dissenting. The Federal Arbitration Act says that an arbitration agreement “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2 (emphasis added). California law sets forth certain circumstances in which “class acti

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2010 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

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2010 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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ■ Marina Garcia Marmolejo, United States District Judge In the weeks following her eye surgery, Plaintiff San Juana Rodriguez resigned her job as a phlebotomist. She later sued her former employer, Defendant Laredo Medical Center,1 alleging that Defendant violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by retaliating against her for taking three days of me

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BERNARDINA RODRIGUEZ, on No. 16-15465 behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the D.C. No. general public, 1:13-cv-01498-SAB Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OPINION TACO BELL CORP., a California corporation, Defendant-Appellee

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAUL LOZANO, on behalf of himself  and all others similarly situated and as a private attorney general on behalf of the members of the general public residing within the Nos. 05-56466 State of California, 05-56511 Plaintiff-Appellee- Cross Appellant, 

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Home Orthopedics Corp., a medical equipment supplier based in Puerto Rico, sued the defendants for their alleged involvement in a scheme to help one guy collect a consulting fee Home Orthopedics agreed to pay him, but based on a contract it later discovered was phony. Fueled by Home Orthopedics’ refusal to continue paying the fee, the defendants purporte