Cases

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NOS. 8 AND 9 SERVED WITH RULE 30(b)(6) NOTICE OF DEPOSITION ROSALYN M. CHAPMAN, United States Magistrate Judge. On August 31, 2007, plaintiff filed a notice of motion and motion for order compelling defendant to produce documents responsive to r

Opinion McCONNELL, P. J. This is the latest appeal arising from the City of San Diego’s (the City) infamous underfunding of its employment retirement *665 system. In 2002 the Board of Directors (board) of the San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System (SDCERS) approved the City

292 B.R. 464 (2003) CONNECTICUT RESOURCES RECOVERY AUTHORITY, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth L. LAY, et al., Defendants. No. 3:02CV2095 (WWE). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. March 17, 2003. *465 *466 Louis R. Pepe, Thomas J. Rechen, James G. Green, Jr., Richard Harvey Goldstein, Pepe &am;

Filed 1/22/14 (unmodified version attached) COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CATHY LEXIN, D062970 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 37-2011-00084354- v. CU-MC-CTL) CITY OF SAN DIEGO,

686 F.Supp. 815 (1987) PREMIER ELECTRONICS LAB, Plaintiff, v. Don ASTON, Defendant. No. CV 85-3512 DWW. United States District Court, C.D. California. September 10, 1987. *816 Allen Hyman of Nagler & Schneider, Beverly Hills, Cal., for plaintiff. Don B. Finkelstein, Los Angeles, Cal., and John E. Halamka of Halamka &am;

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEXIA HERRERA, No. 18-15135 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:16-cv-01802-SB ZUMIEZ, INC., OPINION Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Stanley Alle

529 F.Supp.2d 959 (2007) Franz SCHLEICHER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gary C. WENDT, William J. Shea, Charles B. Chokel, and James S. Adams, Defendants. No. 1:02-cv-1332-DFH-TAB. United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division. September 12, 2007. *960 Brian Joseph Barry, Law Offices of Brian Barry, Claudia Jean Bug

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Lewis Anten, attorney for Style Companies, Ltd. (“Style”) appeals the district court’s imposition of sanctions against him for his conduct in seeking disqualification of opposing counsel. We affirm. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellee Optyl Eyewear Fashion International Corp. (“Optyl”) brought suit against Style Companies, Ltd. (“Style”) for trademark i

Filed 2/4/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE SKYLAR WARD, B280151 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC595405) v. TILLY’S, INC., Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angele

171 F.Supp.2d 333 (2001) CITIGROUP INC. and CITICORP., Plaintiffs, v. CITY HOLDING COMPANY and City National Bank Of West Virginia, Defendants. No. 99 CIV. 10115(RWS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. October 30, 2001. *334 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom by Kenneth A. Plevan, Esq., Stephanie J. Kamerow, Esq.

Office of the Director New Mexico Compilation 14:19:52 2023.12.28 Commission '00'07- IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2024-NMCA-006 Filing Date: August 31

760 F.2d 1045 OPTYL EYEWEAR FASHION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a New Yorkcorporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.STYLE COMPANIES, LTD., a California corporation, Defendant,Lewis Anten, a professional corporation, Appellant. No. 84-5695. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 6, 1985.Decided May 20, 1985.

702 F.Supp. 1031 (1988) MEAD DATA CENTRAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., and Toyota Motor Corp., Defendants. No. 88 Civ. 2854 (DNE). United States District Court, S.D. New York. December 30, 1988. *1032 *1033 Smith & Schnacke, Charles J. Faruki, Sue K. McDonnell, Ma

The defendants, by way of answer, set-off, and counter-claim to an action brought against them, allege that they were the owners of a hearse, worth three hundred dollars, which was consumed by fire while stored in the plaintiff's barn, on Fairview Avenue in Danbury; that when burned it was insured to its full value in a responsible company, by the terms of whose policy it was only covered by such insurance while it was contained in the plaintiffs livery stable on Main street in Danbury; that

Jaggard, J. Plaintiff and appellant, the executor of one Lund, deceased,, brought this action against the defendant and respondent Allen and a corporation hereinafter referred to as the bank. The complaint set forth in effect that in 1906 Lund and Allen executed a written-contract for the sale of land by Allen to Lund; that during his life. Lund paid $27,180 on this contract; that Allen placed in escrow in possession of the ba

By the Court—Robertson, J. Ho consideration seems to have passed between the maker of the notes in question and the first indorser and payee, Cory, notwithstanding the special indorsement by the latter, making it payable to the Cumberland and Pennsylvania railroad alone, and not to their order, it was still negotiable in their hands. (Leavitt v. Putnam, 3 Comst., 494.) If there had been any defense, therefore, a

The court held, upon the foregoing facts, that the plaintiff, although he had recovered judgment against Musnitsky, was barred a recovery against either defendant under his supplemental garnishment of them, if either of them was indebted to him when service was made, because the plaintiff failed to take out execution and have demand duly made upon them within sixty days after the legal stay of execution caused by the notice of appeal had ceased. The court so held, under its construction of Ge

Certiorari to the Springfield Court of Appeals to review the record of that court in the case of Susie E. Kerr against Bush, Receiver of the St. Louis, Iron Mountain Southern Railway Company for damages for the killing of her husband through the negligence of that company. Upon a trial before a jury a verdict was rendered in her favor in the sum of $3500. From this finding an appeal was perfected to the Springfield Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court (21

The defendants are warehousemen, doing business at New Haven, and as such had in their possession a large amount of merchandise, mostly household furniture, belonging to the plaintiff. On the 5th day of August, 1892, *Page 491 the plaintiff demanded said merchandise of the defendants, but they neglected and refused to deliver it to him. Thereupon he brought this action. The cause was tried in the Superior Court upon issues joined to the jury and seems to

The plaintiff alleges in her complaint, that as executrix of Thomas E. Newton she is the owner of a tract of land in the town of Orange which abuts on its easterly side a certain highway known as Union street. It appears in the case that the defendant is a railroad corporation operating a four-track railroad through the said town of Orange and across the said Union street at grade. Acting in pursuance of an order of the railroad commissioners made for the purpose of removing the said grade-cr