Cases

PIERCE, Senior Circuit Judge: Defendant-appellant Diversified Management Group, Inc. (“DMG”) appeals from a $1,300,000 judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee Carvel Corporation (“Carvel”) on its breach of contract claim entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Lee P. Gagliardi, Judge) after a four-day jury trial. DMG

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER W. Keith Watkins, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Community Bankshares, Iric. (“Bankshares"), maintained 'an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP” or “Plan”). The ESOP, which was invested primarily in Bankshares’s stock, was a retirement plan governed by the Employee Retirement

OPINION AND ORDER MELINDA HARMON, UNITED . STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The above referenced putative class action alleges violations of the following securities -fraud statutes through ■ Defendants’ scheme to optimize revenue in investment banking fees from UBS Securities LLC’s corporate client, Enron Corp. (“Enron”), at the expense and defrauding of UBS Financial Service’s brokerage retail clients, Lead Plaint

ACCEPTED 05-15-00369-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 9/8/2015 6:10:20 PM

74 F.Supp.2d 876 (1999) Thomas A. SWOPE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SIEGEL-ROBERT, INC., Defendant. No. 4:97CV02016ERW. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. June 23, 1999. *877 *878 *879 John R. Musgrave, Thompson Coburn, St. Louis, MO

780 F.Supp. 943 (1992) BAUSCH & LOMB INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. SONOMED TECHNOLOGY, INC., Louis Katz and Bernard Bressler, Defendants. No. CV 87-4011 (ADS). United States District Court, E.D. New York. January 3, 1992. *944 *945 *946 Sacks Montgomery,

573 A.2d 1269 (1990) WASHINGTON MEDICAL CENTER, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Henry C. HOLLE, et al., Appellees. Henry C. HOLLE, et al., Appellants, v. WASHINGTON MEDICAL CENTER, INC., et al., Appellees. Nos. 88-1205, 88-1285. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued January 17, 1990. Decided May 3, 1990.

MINER, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-appellant Jeffrey Krinsk is a shareholder in the CMA Money Fund (“Fund”), which is one component of the Cash Management Account program (“CMA program”), a financial services package offered by Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. (“MLPF&S”). He brought this action derivatively on behalf of the Fund against the Fund itself and those MLPF&S-related entities responsible for admini

401 F.Supp. 26 (1975) RARE EARTH, INC., Plaintiff, v. Peter HOORELBEKE and Michael Urso, Defendants. Peter HOORELBEKE and Michael Urso, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Gilbert BRIDGES et al., Third-Party Defendants. No. 74 Civ. 3402 (JMC). United States District Court, S. D. New York. July 15, 1975. *27

BAKER, Chief Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part): I concur with the majority’s judgment that to obtain relief for an Article 12, Uniform *398Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 812 (2012), violation, a eonfinee must exhaust administrative remedies absent unusual or egregious circumstances. As the

482 F.Supp.2d 1103 (2007) AMERICAN CLEANERS AND, LAUNDRY CO. INC., Plaintiff(s), v. TEXTILE PROCESSORS, SERVICE TRADES, HEALTH CARE, PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 161, et al., Defendant(s). No. 4:05CV02271ERW. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. March 20, 2007. *1104

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT DONOVAN W; FRANK, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION This dispute arises from a city enforcing its zoning ordinances to thwart a church’s attempts to purchase a nióvie theater for religious worship. The Court held a bench trial from October 18, 2016 to November 8, 2016, to determine whether the city violated the church

280 F.Supp.2d 1044 (2003) WESTSTEYN DAIRY 2, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EADES COMMODITIES CO., Diversified Business Credit Inc., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Willy Creek Ranch, a California Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Eades Commodities Company; Diversified Business Credit, Inc., et al. Defendants. No. CIV-F-00-7147OWWDLB. United States District Court, E.D. California.</

OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge. Before the court are Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiffs Motion” or “Pl.’s Mot.”) and Cross-Motion of the United States for Partial Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Motion Under Rule 56(f) (“Defendant’s Cross-Motion” or “Def.’s Cross-Mot.”). The issue presented is whether the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) failed to timely issue a Notice o

715 F.Supp.2d 1115 (2010) HRPT PROPERTIES TRUST, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Linda LINGLE, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Hawaii, Defendant, and Citizens for Fair Valuation, Intervenor-Defendant. Civ. No. 09-00375 SOM/KSC. United States District Court, D. Hawai`i. May 31, 2010. *1117 Bruce D. Voss, Matthe

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL CHARLES S. MILLER, JR., United States Magistrate Judge. I. BACKGROUND A. Introduction Case No. L12-CV-125 is an action filed by the State of North Dakota seeking to *1320quiet title to its claim of section line rights-o

DECISION Before this Court are Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider ("Motion") the July 31, 2009 Decision of the above-referenced matter and Defendant's Motion to Lift Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO"). After issuing its July 31, 2009 opinion, but before entry of a final order, this Court determined that it would consider revisiting the Decision if so sought by the parties. After reconsideration, this Court holds that the

270 B.R. 593 (2001) In re William C. McKNEW, Debtor. KMK Factoring, L.L.C., Diversified Investments, L.P., Plaintiff, v. William C. McKnew, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 00-51364-S. Adversary No. 01-5005. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia, Newport News Division. November 2, 2001. *594 *59

Norman G. Zemmelman, Judge. {¶ 1} This cause was before the court on September 18 and 25, 2002 and November 20 and 22, 2002, upon the amended complaint for divorce and the answer and amended counterclaim for divorce. Each party was present, represented by his or her respective counsel. The parties testified in their own behalf, called witnesses, and introduced certain exhibits into evidence.

651 F.Supp.2d 596 (2009) SOUTHGATE MASTER FUND, LLC, by and through MONTGOMERY CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, its Tax Matters Partner, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:06-CV-2335-K. United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. August 18, 2009. *598 M. Todd Welty, Claire Irene Wade, Sonne