Cases

(2008) SOMPO JAPAN INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff, v. VIP TRANSPORT, INC., et al., Defendants. No. C 08-01857 JW. United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. July 24, 2008. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND; GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DIMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND JAMES WARE, District Judge.

301 S.W.3d 747 (2009) ELIJAH RAGIRA/VIP LODGING GROUP, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellant, v. VIP LODGING GROUP, INC., Atmex Corporation and J. Santos Espinoza/Elijah Ragira, Cross-Appellee/Appellees. No. 08-07-00182-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso. November 12, 2009. Rehearing Overruled December 30, 2009. *751

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § ELIJAH RAGIRA/VIP LODGING GROUP, INC., § No. 08-07-00182-CV Appellant/Cross-Appellant, §

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS ELIJAH RAGIRA/VIP LODGING GROUP, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellant, v. VIP LODGING GROUP, INC., ATMEX CORPORATION AND J. SANTOS ESPINOZA/ELIJAH RAGIRA, Cross-Appellee/Appellees. § <

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-972 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:20-cr-00326- JFW-4 v. SHEN ZHEN NEW WORLD I, LLC, OPINION Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United State

SHAPIRO, J. In its amended complaint, the plaintiff, VIP of Berlin, LLC, seeks a declaratory judgment to determine whether the locational restrictions found in § 14-291 of article six of the Berlin municipal code, the sexually oriented business ordinance (ordinance), §§ 14-241 through 14-295, are unenforceable. The plaintiff claims that the locational restrictions are an ultra vires act, constitute de facto zoning, and were not a

644 F.Supp.2d 151 (2009) VIP OF BERLIN, LLC, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF BERLIN, Herman Middlebrooks, Jr., in his official capacity as Town Manager of the Town of Berlin, and Denise McNair, in her official capacity as the Town Manager of the Town of Berlin, Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:06cv1811 (SRU). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. July 2, 2009. Orde

951 A.2d 714 (2008) 50 Conn.Sup. 542 VIP OF BERLIN, LLC v. TOWN OF BERLIN et al. No. CV06-4012399S. Superior Court of Connecticut, District of New Britain. May 27, 2008. Memorandum filed July 11, 2007.[*] *715 Silver & Silver, LLP, New Britain, for the plaintiff. Wigg

Filed 1/7/25 Certified for Publication 1/24/25 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE RAYLON CARMICHAEL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, G063589 v. (Super. Ct. No. RIC1906133) CAFÉ SEVILLA OF RIVERSIDE, OPINION INC.,

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge. A jury found truck driver Rodney Martin and the moving firm for which he worked, V.I.P. Transportation, Inc., liable for the injuries Joseph Roback and Wendy Rizzo suffered when Martin’s truck rear-ended the automobile in which they were driving. Martin and VIP had filed a third-party complaint against Chicago Kenworth, Inc., Paccar, Inc., and AlliedSignal, Inc. based on a purported def

FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Shannon Volling and Allen Springer brought federal and state retalia *381 tion claims against Antioch Rescue Squad (“ARS”) and its subcontractor, Kurtz Paramedic Services, Inc. (“Kurtz”). Plaintiffs allege the companies wrongfully refused to hire them as emergency me

22-1374-cv National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. James In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term, 2023 Argued: November 3, 2023 Decided: July 10, 2025 Docket No. 22-1374-cv NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC., BERETT

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 8, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D21-2164 Lower Tribunal No. 18-792-P ________________ James Randolph Harris, Appellant,

*272 WALTERS, J. In this case, we consider the meaning of the term “substantial completion” as used in ORS 12.135, a statute of ultimate repose for claims arising from the construction, alteration, or repair of improvements to real property. We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand to the

Funke, J. This appeal concerns an order from the Lancaster County District Court which found that Elizabeth Mays, an exotic dancer with Midnite Dreams, Inc., doing business as Shaker's, was an employee entitled to compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act 1 (FLSA) and the Wage and Hour Act <

Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v CBS News Inc. (2015 NY Slip Op 06409) Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v CBS News Inc. 2015 NY Slip Op 06409 Decided on August 4, 2015 Appellate Division, First Department Tom, J.p., J. </

21 P.3d 11 (2001) GES, INC., a Nevada Corporation, Appellant, v. Jeff CORBITT; Michelle Corbitt; Powerline, Inc., a Colorado Corporation; and VIP Global Designs, Inc., A Colorado Corporation, Respondents. No. 33528. Supreme Court of Nevada. April 13, 2001. *12 Law Offices of John & Elizabeth Foley, Las Vegas, for Appellant.</

MEMORANDUM OPINION WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On May 12, 2015, the court ordered plaintiff Arthur C. Thomas, in light of its recent opinion in Savage v. Secure First Credit Union, 107 F.Supp.3d 1212, 2015 WL 2169135 (N.D.Ala. May 8, 2015), to show cause “why the court should not require him either to dismiss all his claims except that in Count One [race discrimination]

OPINION & ORDER HERNANDEZ, District Judge: Plaintiffs Christopher Cordova and Timothy Berg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring this wage action against Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on their allegation that Defendant improperly treated them as independent contractors when they were actually employees. .

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS Victor A. Bolden, United States District Judge Ester Sanches-Naek, her husband Rashid Hamid, and their minor son Abdul Naek Hamid (“Plaintiffs”), bring this action against TAP Portugal, Inc. (“TAP”) (“Defendant”), alleging various claims under the laws of Connecticut and under 28 U.S.C. .§§ 1981 and 1983. EOF No. 1. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from an alleged incident that occurred af