Cases

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 20) C.N. CLEVERT, JR., District Judge. Christopher Smith brings this action seeking to recover damages from Encore Capital Group Inc., Midland Funding LLC., and Midland Credit Management Inc. (“MCM”) Smith claims that the defendants are debt collectors and violated numerous provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) alon

MEMORANDUM * Appellant Encore Capital Group and individual defendants appeal the district court’s denial of their special motion to strike pursuant to California’s antiSLAPP law, Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not set them forth here. We have jurisdiction to hear this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1024-25 (9th Cir.2

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-04-00700-CV Joyce Ludwig, Appellant

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-04-00700-CV Joyce Ludwig, Appellant v. Encore Medical, L.P. f/k/a Encore Orthopedics, Inc.; Encore Medical GP, Inc.; and Encore Medical Corporation, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN201588, HONORABLE SUZANNE COVINGT

STEELE, Chief Justice: This is an appeal from the Court of Chancery’s dismissal of a class action complaint challenging the merger of a limited partnership with its general partner’s controller. The plaintiff limited partner’s complaint alleges that the general partner, its controller, and its directors took actions during and preceding the merger negotiations that breached the contractual duties the limited partnership agre

Sykes, Circuit Judge. *764 Amy Dunbar and Tammy Smith received collection letters offering to settle their debts at a significant discount. Both letters included the warning: "This settlement may have tax consequences." In separate suits Dunbar and Smith claimed that this statement is misl

Multibank, Inc., Plaintiff, againstAccess Global Capital LLC, James Besch, Global Commodities Group LLC, and Novel Commodities S.A., Defendants. 650637/2016 Kaplan Rice LLP, for plaintiff. Sullivan & Worcester LLP and Yeskoo Hogan & Tamlyn, LL

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SNOW PHIPPS GROUP, LLC, and ) DECOPAC HOLDINGS INC., ) ) Plaintiffs-Counterclaim ) Defendants, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2020-0282-KSJM ) KCAKE ACQUISITION, INC.,

PER CURIAM: Encore Videos’s petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. The City’s petition for rehearing en banc is construed as a petition for panel rehearing pursuant to the 5th Cir. IOP to Fed. R. App. P. 35, and is also DENIED. The opinion of the court issued on October 29, 2002, 310 F.3d 812, is withdrawn, and the following is substituted: I. Appellant Encore Videos, Inc. (“Encore Vi

330 F.3d 288 ENCORE VIDEOS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,v.CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, Defendant-Appellee. No. 00-51119. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. April 29, 2003. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Arthur Myron Schwartz, Michael W. Gross, Schwartz & Goldberg, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

191 S.W.3d 285 (2006) Joyce LUDWIG, Appellant, v. ENCORE MEDICAL, L.P. f/k/a Encore Orthopedics, Inc.; Encore Medical GP, Inc.; and Encore Medical Corporation, Appellee. No. 03-04-00700-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin. March 9, 2006. Rehearing Overruled April 19, 2006. *286 Kevin C. Norton, Cantey & Han

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD GIBSON; ROBERTO No. 24-3576 MANZO, D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00140- Plaintiffs - Appellants, MMD-DJA v. CENDYN GROUP, LLC; THE OPINION RAINMAKER GROUP UNLIMITED, INC.; CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; TREASURE ISLAND, LLC; WYNN RE

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE COLUMBIA PIPELINE GROUP, ) CONSOLIDATED MERGER LITIGATION ) C.A. No. 2018-0484-JTL POST-TRIAL OPINION ADDRESSING LIABILITY FOR AIDING AND ABETTING Date Submitted: November 22, 2022 Date Decided: June 30, 2023 Ned Weinberger, Derrick Farrell, Brendan W. Sullivan, LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Gregory V. V

MEMORANDUM DECISION Robert E. Grossman, United States Bankruptcy Judge 1. Introduction Anthony Labrosciano (the “Plaintiff’), the Chapter 11 Responsible Person of the estate of Signature Apparel Group LLC (the “Debtor”), appointed pursuant to a confirmed liquidation plan, commenced this adversary proceeding under the Bankruptcy Code, New York and Delaware law asserting a variety of claims aris

ORDER WILEY Y. DANIEL, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION THIS MATTER is before the Court on several motions to dismiss filed by Defendants. This is a class action brought under federal and state securities laws to recover damages resulting from a Ponzi scheme orchestrated by an entity known as Mantria Corporation (“Mantria”). In the Complaint, Plaintiff Touchstone alleges that

Filed 4/8/24 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE GAUTAM SHAH, Plaintiff and Appellant, A165372 v. (City & County of San Francisco SKILLZ INC., Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-576014) Defendant and Appellant. Pla

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MGG SPV DUCK LP, directly, and derivatively on ) Behalf of all Nominal Defendants SHARI’S ) RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., and SHARI’S ) MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. N

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ACTIVE DAY OH, INC., ADSC ) HOLDINGS, INC., and PERSON ) CENTERED SERVICES, INC., ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N22C-08-064 SKR CCLD ) GREGORY WEHR and KENNETH

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) IN RE THE TRADE DESK, INC. ) Consol. C.A. No. 2022-0461-PAF DERIVATIVE LITIGATION ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Date Submitted: April 5, 2024 Date Decided: February 14, 2025 Stephen E. Jenkins, Marie M. Degnan, ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Frank R. Schirripa, Daniel B. Rehn

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit __________________________ AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, AND THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., Defendant-Cross Appellant. __________________________ 2009-1372, -1380, -1