Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN D. BATES, United States District Judge Before the Court is [17] plaintiffs’ motion for conditional class certification for the purposes of settlement and motion for final approval of the class settlement. On June 27, 2013, this Court entered an Order preliminarily approving the settlement and preliminarily certifying

MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN D. BATES, District Judge. In this case, plaintiffs allege that defendant L’Oréal USA, Inc., falsely and deceptively labeled several products as available exclusively in salons. The parties have moved for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement and preliminary certification of the settlement class. After careful consideration

Egan Jr., J. *1159We affirm. To the extent that plaintiffs’ various recusal/ disqualification motions are properly before this Court, we find them to be lacking in merit. “Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, which is not at issue here, a . . . judge is the sole arbiter of recusal and his or her decision, which lies within the personal conscience o

Proceedings: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (filed 2/1/2012) CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On February 3, 2011, plaintiffs Jill Guido, a California resident, and Natalie Lefebvre, a Texas resident, commenced this action in this Court by filing a complaint against defendants L’Oreal, USA, Inc. and L’Oreal USA Products, Inc. in Case No. CV 11-1067 CAS (JCx)

CHIN, J. I dissent. Plaintiff alleges she was subjected to adverse employment actions due to her opposition to a personnel order that, she now claims, she believed constituted unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex. She seeks the protection of a statute that prohibits retaliation against a person who opposes a forbidden employment practice. However, until af

142 F.Supp.2d 17 (2000) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. L'OREAL S.A., L'Oreal USA, Inc., and Carson, Inc., Defendants. No. Civ.A. 1:00CV01848. United States District Court, District of Columbia. November 27, 2000. Maurice Stucke, U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. *18 Pete

131 Cal.Rptr.2d 575 (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1036 Elysa J. YANOWITZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. L'OREAL USA, INC., Defendant and Respondent. No. A095474. Court of Appeal, First District, Division Five. March 7, 2003. Rehearing Denied April 7, 2003. Review Granted June 11, 2003. *5

Case: 21-1969 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 06/13/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, CARMEL LABORATORIES, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. L’ORÉAL S.A., L’ORÉAL USA, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2021-1969 __________________

Case: 21-1969 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 06/13/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, CARMEL LABORATORIES, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. L’ORÉAL S.A., L’ORÉAL USA, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2021-1969 __________________

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 22-1122 __________ HOME DEPOT USA, INC., Appellant v. LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA, INC. _______________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No.

THIS OPINION With ref IS A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Hearing: Mailed: 8/2/11 3/20/12 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ______ L’Oreal S.A. and L’Oreal USA, Inc.

310 F.Supp.2d 963 (2004) Billy CUPP and Cathy R. Craig d/b/a Looks Salon, Plaintiff, v. ALBERTO-CULVER USA, INC., Sally Beauty Company, Inc., Beauty Systems Group, Inc., L'Oréal, S.A., L'Oréal USA, Inc., Redken 5th Avenue N.Y.C. LLC, and John Paul Mitchell Systems, Defendants. No. 03-2592-DV. United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division. March 30, 2004.

308 F.Supp.2d 873 (2004) Billy CUPP and Cathy R. Craig d/b/a Looks Salon, Plaintiffs, v. ALBERTO-CULVER USA, INC., Sally Beauty Company, Inc., Beauty Systems Group, Inc., L'Oréal, S.A., L'Oréal USA, Inc., Redken 5th Avenue N.Y.C. LLC, and John Paul Mitchell Systems, Defendants. No. 03-2592-DV. United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division. March 16, 2004.

*642 Opinion JOHNSON, J. When he was hired in September 2010, plaintiff Scott Rope informed his employer, defendant Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc. (Auto-Chlor), he planned in February 2011 to donate a kidney to his physically disabled sister and requested that he be given leave

MEMORANDUM * Appellant Kamela Wilkinson appeals from the district court’s certification of a nationwide class of consumers of department store cosmetics, represented by Plaintiffs-Appellees, and approval of a final settlement of their antitrust claims against Defendants-Appellees. Wilkinson also objects to the district court’s referral of certain matters to a special master without the consent of unnamed c

499 F.3d 950 (2007) Fatemah AZIZIAN; Soraya Farrah; Eunice Fey; Rose Gonzales; Kazuko Y. Morgan; Nicola Nelson-Torres; Monique Patrick; Judith Pogran; Pamela Powell; Shirley Powell; Rose Skillman on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated; Hannah Feldman; Nikki Hurst Gibson, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Kamela Wilkinson, Appellant, Susan Casenza; Valerie Theng Matherne, Intervenors-Appellees, v. FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.;

734 F.Supp.2d 304 (2010) METLIFE INVESTORS USA INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Daniel ZEIDMAN as Trustee for Esther Zeidman Trust and Lavell S. Pratt as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sherry Pratt, Defendants. No. 09-cv-2596 (ADS)(ETB). United States District Court, E.D. New York. August 31, 2010. *307 Unger, Stokes, A

Case: 19-1871 Document: 146 Page: 1 Filed: 03/05/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ PFIZER INC., Appellant v. SANOFI PASTEUR INC., SK CHEMICALS CO., LTD., Appellees KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATEN

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ANTHONY W. ISHII, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Defendant CCA of Tennessee, LLC (erroneously sued as California City Correction Center) has filed a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication in the alternative pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For reasons discussed below, summary adjudication shall

Filed 1/27/22; Certified for Pub. 2/18/22 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR KENNETH ALLEN WHITE, II, Plaintiff and Appellant, A161858 v. (San Francisco County SMULE, INC., Super. Ct. No. CGC-19- 574328