Cases

663 F.Supp.2d 1336 (2009) Carol D. SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WM. WRIGLEY JR. COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. 09-60646-CIV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida. October 1, 2009. *1337 Cullin Avram O'Brien, Jonathan Matthew Stein, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER HARRY D. LEINENWEBER, District Judge. Before the Court is Swerve IP’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, and Wrigley’s Motion to Strike and Motion for a Hearing. For the reasons contained herein, Wrigley’s Motions are granted in part and denied in part, and Swerve’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is continued pending a hearing. I. BACKGROU

631 F.Supp.2d 1010 (2009) WM. WRIGLEY JR. COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. CADBURY ADAMS USA LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant. No. 04-cv-0346. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. June 26, 2009. *1015 Michael J. Abernathy, Alan L. Barry, Christopher James Fahy, Eric P. M

500 F.Supp.2d 922 (2007) WM. WRIGLEY JR. COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff, v. CADBURY ADAMS USA LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation, Defendants. No. 04 C 346. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. May 18, 2007. *923 *924

VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge: Amurol Products Company appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York which followed a nonjury trial before Judge Leisure. The judgment awarded Jim Bouton Corporation (JBC) substantial damages and gave it injunctive relief in its action for breach of contract. It also dismissed Amurol’s counterclaim seeking recovery against JBC on a theory

902 F.2d 1074 JIM BOUTON CORPORATION, a New Jersey Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.WM. WRIGLEY JR. COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, and AmurolProducts Company, an Illinois Corporation, andsubsidiary of Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company,Defendants.Appeal of AMUROL PRODUCTS COMPANY. No. 560, Docket 89-7805. United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. Arg

ORDER PATRICK J. SCHILTZ, District Judge. Plaintiff David Fleener brings this action under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Minn.Stat. § 363A.01 et seq., against his former employer, defendant Wrigley Sales Company, LLC (“Wrigley”). Fleener also brings a claim of retaliation under Minn.Stat. § 181.964, which prohibits an employer

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge Plaintiff Phyllis Gustavson (“Gustav-son”) brings this putative class action against Defendants Wrigley Sales Company and Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, Mars, Inc., and Mars Chocolate North America, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that Defendants’ package labeling is “mis

Mr. Justice Kiley delivered the opinion of the court. This is an action under section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Chapter 48, Par. 166, Ill. Rev. Stats. [Jones Ill. Stats. Ann. 143.44] to recover an amount not to exceed $4,071.70, the amount of compensation, etc. paid or to be paid by plaintiff to the widow of its employee by reason of the latter’s injuries which ca

CARDAMONE, Circuit Judge: Nearly 20 years ago plaintiffs entered into a contract to build a hotel in Florida for defendant, Resnick Developers South, Inc. (Developers). Since then the real estate deal has gone sour, demands for payments for labor and services remain outstanding, and a judgment brought to collect the money owed plaintiffs still is unsatisfied. In their suit before the district court plaintiffs attempted to pr

933 F.2d 131 32 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1218 WM. PASSALACQUA BUILDERS, INC., and Safeco Insurance Companyof America and General Insurance Company ofAmerica, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees,v.RESNICK DEVELOPERS SOUTH, INC., Jack Resnick, BurtonResnick, 90079, Inc., Jack Resnick & Sons, Inc., SunriseBuilders, Inc., Jack Resnick & Sons of Florida, Inc.,Resnick of Boca, Inc., JFAM Inve

PEATROSS, J. Defendant Northeast Louisiana Marine Institute, Inc. (“NLMI”), appeals a default judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, Robert Williams, Sr. and Fannie Williams, individually and on behalf of their minor son, Robert Williams, Jr. The trial court awarded Plaintiffs damages in the amount of $60,159.86. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and render judgment in favor of NLMI. <

*1353REYNA, Circuit Judge, dissenting-in-part. For too long, this court has turned a blind eye to what I consider to be a grave concern: the application of a prima facie test that necessarily achieves a legal determination of obviousness prior to full and fair consideration of evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness.1

LINN, Circuit Judge. Kennametal, Inc. (“Kennametal”) appeals the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) in an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,244,519 (the “'519 patent”) in which the Board: (a) entered a new anticipation ground of rejection asserted by Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co. (“Ingersoll”) against certain of the pendi

81,7(' 67$7(6 ',675,&7 &2857 )25 7+( ',675,&7 2) &2/80%,$ ,1 5( 0&&250,&. &203$1< ,1& 3(33(5 352'8&76 0$5.(7,1* $1' 6$/(6 35$&7,&(6 /,7,*$7,21 0'/ 'RFNHW 1R  0LVF 1R 

McKEE, Circuit Judge. Asplundh Tree Expert Company petitions for review of a decision of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) wherein the NLRB ruled that Asplundh committed unfair labor practices by threatening to lay off Dennis Brinson and by discharging Brinson and Eric Crabtree in response to their concerted complaint about working conditions while on temporar

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff, a naturalized citizen of the United States, brought an employment discrimination suit — predicated upon Title VII and state law causes of action — against his employer, a United States corporation whose principal place of business is in Saudi Arabia. In his suit, plaintiff charged that while he was working in Saudi Arabia, his employer discriminated against him on the basis of his

KING, Circuit Judge, with whom REAVLEY, POLITZ, JOHNSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, join dissenting: I agree with the majority that the sole question presented in this en banc rehearing is whether Congress acted to extend the protections of Title VII to United States citizens employed in other countries by United States employers. I believe that a fair and reasonable reading of this civil rights statute co

583 F.2d 507 Manuel VALLEJOS, Plaintiff,v.C. E. GLASS COMPANY and PPG Industries, Inc., Defendants andCross-Claimants,Wood Bros. Homes, Inc., Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Appellee.C. E. GLASS COMPANY, Third-Party Plaintiff,v.AMERICAN GLASS & INSULATION, Third-Party Defendant andCross-Claimant-Appellant. No. 76-1688. United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit.</

IRVING R. KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge: We are presented in this case with cross-appeals from a final judgment entered April 14, 1970, premised upon a previous default judgment, in favor of plaintiff Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA) against defendants-appellants Hughes Tool Company and its chief financial officer, Raymond M. Holliday (Toole