Cases

Manish S. Shah, United States District Judge *1160Defendant's motion for reconsideration [318] is granted. STATEMENT Yahoo!'s PC2SMS service caused a text message to be sent to Rachel Johnson by pulling her number from a database of stored numbers-an address book-and then automatically sending that number a text messa

14‐454 Johnson v. Nextel Communications Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2014 (Argued: December 9, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2015) Docket No. 14‐454

GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judge: This case arises from a novel approach to aggregate litigation that continues to provoke debate among experts in legal ethics.1 The law firm of Leeds, Morelli & Brown PC (“LMB” or “the firm”), representing 587 employees with discrimination claims against their employer, Nextel Communications, Inc. (“Nextel”), agreed with Nextel to set up a dispute resolution pr

OPINION HURWITZ, Circuit Judge: The issue for decision in these four putative class actions is whether we have jurisdiction to hear appeals from district court orders staying judicial proceedings and compelling arbitration of the named plaintiffs’ individual claims. We hold that 9 U.S.C. § 16 bars such appeals. I In Internet transactions, James Johnson, Steven

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GEORGE B. DANIELS, District Judge: Before the Court is the motion for class certification of common issues of Representative Plaintiffs Michael S. Johnson, Donna Dymkowski, Patricia Long-Correa, Antonio Samuel, and Angelette Waters. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Leeds, Morelli & Brown, P.C. (“LMB”) committed, and Defendant Nextel Communications, Inc. (“Nextel”)

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMES JOHNSON, individually and on No. 11-56520 behalf of all others similarly situated, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:11-cv-02753- JVS-FMO v. CONSUMERINFO.COM, INC., Defendant-Appellee. STEVEN GROSZ, individually and on No. 11-57182 behalf of all ot

ORDER HARRY S. MATTICE, JR. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10) filed by Plaintiff James Hale and the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 25) filed by Defendant Bill Johnson. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10) should be DENIED, and that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 25) should be GRAN

712 F.Supp.2d 1285 (2010) JOHNSON & JOHNSON VISION CARE, INC., Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. CIBA VISION CORPORATION, Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff. Case Nos. 3:05-cv-135-J-32TEM, 3:06-cv-301-J-32TEM. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division. April 27, 2010. *1286 Charles R. Work, Raphae

OPINION WOLFSON, District Judge: This putative class action challenges the constitutionality of detention procedures related to mandatory detention of aliens under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), codified as the' Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Putative class representatives Garfield O. Gayle (“Gayle”) and Neville Sukhu (“Suk-hu”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “Named Plaintiffs”) aver that they and other si

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VINCENT KEITH BELL, No. 22-16580 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-01245-SI v. WILLIAMS, #6040; CITY AND OPINION COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendants-Appellants, and FISHER, #1152; LEUNG, #2019; ANTHONY BRYANT; JOHNSON BUI; ROBERT DALY; KRISTIAN DEJESUS; DENNIS WALSH; ROBERT YEUNG, Defend

Moyer, C.J. I. Introduction {¶ 1} Petitioner Melisa Arbino initiated a products-liability action against respondents Johnson & Johnson, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc., and John*469son & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C. (collectively, “Johnson &

[Cite as St. Vincent Charity v. Paluscsak, 2024-Ohio-3023.] [Please see vacated opinion at 2023-Ohio-4641.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA ST. VINCENT CHARITY, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 111932

OPINION OF THE COURT Carol Robinson Edmead, J. In this defamation action by plaintiff Deer Consumer Products, Inc. (Deer), defendant Alfred Little (Little) (appearing pseudonymously) seeks (1) to dismiss the complaint against him pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) for lack of personal jurisdiction and (2) to appear and/or proceed anonymously. Factual Background Deer, a N

BIRCH, Circuit Judge: In this interlocutory appeal, 1-800 CONTACTS, Inc. (“1-800”) argues that the district court erred when it issued a preliminary injunction forbidding 1-800 from making certain statements about the products and services of Johnson & Johnson Vision , Care, Inc. (“J&J”). The district court based its 'injunction on the conclusion that three of the adve

Cite as 2022 Ark. App. 276 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CV-21-611 MICHAEL BEAN Opinion Delivered June 1, 2022 APPELLANT V. APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Henry J. Boroff, United States Bankruptcy Judge Before the Court after trial is a complaint filed by Susan D. Burm, the debtor in the underlying Chapter 11 bankruptcy case (the “Debtor”), objecting to two claims filed by creditor Raymond Piling Products, Inc. (“RPP”). The Debtor argues that RPP does not hold valid claims against her because the underlying bases for those cla

ORDER M. CASEY RODGERS, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This case involves a challenge to the validity of two regulations promulgated jointly by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Labor in 2015 in connection with the H-2B visa *1276program, which allows employers to import temporary, foreign workers for non-

797 F.Supp.2d 1020 (2011) WETZEL'S PRETZELS, LLC v. Tito JOHNSON, et al. No. CV 11-04459 AHM (SPx). United States District Court, C.D. California. June 27, 2011. *1022 Aaron P. Rudin, Calvin E. Davis, Gordon and Rees LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Wetzel's Pretzels, LLC. Willie W. Williams, Willie W. Williams Law Offices, Ranch

DISSENTING OPINION BY KLEIN, J.: ¶ 1 I believe the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the so-called “Crown Cork and Seal Act”.1 I further believe that so-called statute is unconstitutional because it is in violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution,2 and it constitutes a denial of equal protection rights

Robinson, J. ¶ 1. This ease involves a jury award of emotional distress and economic damages in a legal malpractice action. Defendant challenges the damages award on the grounds that emotional distress damages are not available in a legal malpractice case and that the award of economic damages equal to the amount plaintiff paid to settle the underlying case was improper because plai