Cases

Connon, Richard F., J. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Independence Seaport Museum filed this conversion, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty action against its former president, John Carter, seeking to recover in excess of $2 million Carter allegedly stole from the museum. This matter is before the court on the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on Counts I, II, III and IV of the First Amended Complaint pursuant

OPINION1 Re D.I. Nos. 22, 43, 45, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 & 173 KEVIN GROSS, Bankruptcy Judge. Defendants CapitalSource Finance, LLC (“CapSource”), Seaport Capital, LLC and its affiliated defendants (collectively, “Seaport”), James Collis, Robert Tamashunas, Andrew Meyers, On Target Media Holdings, Inc. (“OTMH”), Innovation Ads, Inc. (“Innovation”), Michael

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE TERRAMAR RETAIL CENTERS, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 12875-VCL ) MARION #2-SEAPORT TRUST U/A/D/ ) JUNE 21, 2002 ) ) Defendant. )

OMNIBUS OPINION AND ORDER JUAN M. PEREZ-GIMENEZ, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Defendants Jovanni Verestin-Cruz (“Verestin”), Rocky Martinez-Negron (“Martinez”), Edgar Collazo-Rivera (“Col-lazo”), and Carlos Raymundi-Hernandez’s (“Raymundi”) filed motions for acquittal under Rule 29 and/or for a new trial under Rule 33.1 See Docket Nos. 1599, 1594, 1593, and 1600. The United Stat

PETERSON, Chief Judge. Seabird Properties, Inc. (Seabird), appeals an order enforcing a settlement agreement. We vacate the order. Seabird is a developer of a condominium. Villages of Seaport Condominium, Inc. (Villages) is the association for the condominium and the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) is the receiver for a savings and loan association which had originally financed Seabird’s project. All t

REDACTED OPINION In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 22-633C Filed: February 19, 2023 Redacted Version Issued for Publication: March 14, 20231 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * VECTRUS SERVICES A/S, * * P

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. An undercover United States Customs Task Force operation involving efforts on land, at sea, and in the air, ended with the arrests of the defendants, Saturnino Tatis-Núñez (“Tatis”), César Hernández-De la Rosa (“Hernández”), Carlos Espinal-Almeida (“Espinal”), and Jacobo Peguero-Carela (“Peguero”). Each was indicted on, and ultimately convicted of, one c

Consolidated post-award bid protests; limitation on competition due to international agreement; 10 U.S.C. § 2304(c); FAR § 6.302.4; inapplicability of bar on jurisdiction over actions based on treaty; 28 U.S.C. § 1502; mistake in a critical eligibility criterion; latent defect discovered by procuring agency prior to award but not corrected; considerations affecting equitable relief OPINIO

OPINION AND ORDER HEWITT, Judge. Plaintiffs, who are approximately sixty canine enforcement officers (CEOs) now or formerly employed by the United States Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs or defendant), seek unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (2000) (FLSA).1 Plaintiffs specifi

Lourie, Circuit Judge. Zafer Taahhut Insaat ve Ticaret A.S. (“Zafer”) appeals from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims’s (“Claims Court”) (1) grant of summary judgment that the Ü.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) did not constructively change the terms of its contract with Zafer; and (2) denial of Zafer’s motion to supplement the record with several newspaper articles.

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 2 United States v. Laton No. 02-5185 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2003 FED App. 0437P (6th Cir.) File Name: 03a0437p.06 Tennessee, for Appellant. Leslie I. Ballin, BALLIN, BALLIN & FISHMAN, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS M

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JEFFREY T. MILLER, District Judge. Plaintiff California Coastal Commission (“CCC”) moves for summary judgment on its claim that the Federal Defendants’ decision not to conduct a supplemental consistency determination under the Coastal Zone Management Act (“CZMA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq., i

MOORE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAUGHTREY, J., joined. SUTTON, J. (pp. 302-15), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. OPINION MOORE, Circuit Judge. Local and state government institutions provide a wide variety of services ranging from transportation to economic development, which can produce ripples in the broader stream of interstate commerce to varying deg

OPINION YOCK, Judge. In this breach of contract action, the plaintiffs allege that the United States Customs Service (“the Customs Service” or “Customs”) engaged them to assist in apprehending alleged drug smugglers through a maritime sting operation. The Court heard testimony and argument during a week of trial and carefully read the parties’ post-trial submissions. Although the Court believes that the plai

ORDER EDENFIELD, District Judge. This litigation is before the Court for adjudication following a final hearing held on March 11, 1985. I. Background A. Procedural History Plaintiff Michael J. Cesaroni, Jr. filed this action against defendant United States of America (“the Government”) on November 16, 1983, claiming damages pursuant to t

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 1 WILLIAM E. CASSADY, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff ThyssenKrupp Steel USA, LLC (“TKS”)’s motion for summary judgment in its favor on Defendant United Forming, Inc. (“UFI”)’s five-count counterclaim (Doc. 47; see also Docs. 48-50, 52, 70 (UFI’s opposition), and 80 (TKS’s reply in support))2

Nichols, Judge, dissenting: I regret that I feel compelled to dissent in this case, though perhaps not as keenly as if my views commanded majority support, leading to a new trial and further delay in righting the ancient wrongs done the ancestors of these Indians. My minority position, happily, exempts me from feeling any moral scruples against saying what I think. Then too, I am not certain the errors

335 F.Supp. 501 (1971) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 418, et al., Defendants. No. 71 C 2416. United States District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D. November 3, 1971. *502 William J. Bauer, U. S. Atty., James H. Alesia and John Simon, Asst. U. S. Attys., for plaintiff

Whitaker, Judge, dissenting: I mnst express the reasons for my dissent from the opinion and decision of the majority, because I think there has been a flagrant violation of a right of one of our citizens by his Government, which seeks to escape liability under the cloak of the immunity of a sovereign. This is a case in which this court gives sanction to bureaucratic action in violation of a right, this time a ri

155 F.Supp. 121 (1957) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, The Texas Company, Bahrein Petroleum Company, Ltd., California-Texas Oil Company, Ltd., Caltex Oceanic, Ltd., and Mideast Crude Sales Company, Defendants. United States District Court S. D. New York. July 17, 1957. *122