Cases

*779ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT Joseph C. Spero, Chief Magistrate Judge 1. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs1 bring this putative class action against Defendant Seagate Technology LLC (“Seagate”), alleging that Seagate misrepresented certai

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge MAYER, in which Circuit Judges NEWMAN, LOURIE, RADER, SCHALL, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, and PROST join. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge GAJARSA, in which Circuit Judge NEWMAN joins. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN. MAYER, Circuit Judge. Seagate Technology, LLC (“Seagate”) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United Stat

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM JEFFREY J. KEYES, United States Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of *989Documents and to Permit Questioning about Those Documents (Doc. No. 206). A hearing was held on the matter on November 9, 2011. (Doc. No. 232.) Appearances are noted on the record. One of the arg

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING THE DECEMBER 15, 2011 ORDER OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge. Shukh objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Order (Docket No. 251) granting in part and denying in part his motion to compel document production. The Court has carefully considered Shukh’s timely objections. Because the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are neither clea

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC; No. 24-4470 SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY D.C. No. (THAILAND) LTD.; SEAGATE 3:19-md-02918- SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL MMC HEADQUARTERS PTE, LTD; SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, OPINION Plaintiffs - Appellants,

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 212 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 213 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT

OPINION ANDERSON, Justice. An arbitrator issued an award against appellants Sining Mao, Western Digital Corporation, and Western Digital Technologies, Inc., in an amount exceeding $500 million. The award was vacated in part by the district court and then reinstated by the court of appeals. Mao and the Western Digital entities now separately seek review of the reinstatement decision. Mao and Western Digita

692 F.Supp.2d 402 (2010) MAGSIL CORP., et al. v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, et al. Civil Action No. 08-940. United States District Court, D. Delaware. March 1, 2010. *404 Jack B. Blumenfeld, Rodger Dallery Smith, II, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, DE, Craig Tolliver, Pro Hac Vice, David Sochia, Pro Hac Vice, Steven J.

502 F.Supp.2d 884 (2007) In re HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. No. 05-CV-2095 (PJS/JJG). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. June 4, 2007. *885 *886 *887 *888 Trig R. Smith, Thomas E. Egler, Mario Alba,

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS ALLEGING FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM DAVID M. LAWSON, United States District Judge This is the third motion to dismiss filed by the defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) aimed at the first amended consolidated master class action complaint (FACMC) in this multidistrict litigation

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE DELAWARE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ) C.A. No. 2018-0029-JTL LITIGATION ) COUNTY TRACK OPINION Date Submitted: January 17, 2020 Date Decided: May 8, 2020 Richard H. Morse, COMMUNITY LEGAL AID SOCIETY, INC., Wilmington, Delaware; Karen Lantz, ACLU FOUNDATION OF DELAWARE, INC., Wilmington, Delaware; Sa

809 F.Supp.2d 996 (2011) James PETERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SEAGATE U.S. LLC, et al., Defendants. Civil No. 07-2502. United States District Court, D. Minnesota. August 15, 2011. *998 Dan Kohrman, Laurie McCann and Thomas Osborne, AARP Foundation Litigation, Beth E. Bertelson and Andrea R. Ostapowich, Bertelson Law Offices, P.

*965ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ANTHEM DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART NON-ANTHEM DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 410, 413 LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge Plaintiffs1 bring this putative class action against Anthem,

503 F.3d 1254 (2007) In re GABAPENTIN PATENT LITIGATION. Warner-Lambert Co., Pfizer, Inc., and Godecke Aktiengesellschaft, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. and Faulding, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and Watson Laboratories, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Pharma, Inc., and Danbury Pharmacal, Inc., Defendants, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Zenith Laboratories,

*265 ORDER VANESSA D. GILMORE, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. (Instrument No. 179). The Court heard oral argument from the parties on the motion on April 13, 2007. I. This suit was originally filed in 2002 as a securities class action against

ORDER JOHN ANTOON II, District Judge. This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion For Class Certification (Doe. No. 197) filed May 2, 2006. The United States Magistrate Judge has submitted a report recommending that the motion be granted. After an independent de novo review of the record in this matter, and consideration of Defendants’ Objections to the Report and Recomm

(2007) In re SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. Civil Action No. 1:01-CV-1950-RWS. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. September 7, 2007. ORDER RICHARD W. STORY, District Judge. This case is presently before the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification [151]. After considering

924 A.2d 951 (2007) In re The TOPPS COMPANY SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION. C.A. No. 2786-VCS. Court of Chancery of Delaware, New Castle County. Submitted: May 8, 2007. Decided: May 9, 2007. *952 Seth D. Rigrodsky, and Brian D. Long, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Joseph A. Rosenthal, Rosenthal, Monhait & Godde

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER COLE, United States Magistrate Judge. INTRODUCTION This is a multi-district, antitrust case involving allegations that the defendants conspired to raise, fix, maintain or stabilize the price of sulfuric acid in the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action compl

For Publication IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS IN RE: THE ESTATE OF FELIPE )_ S.Ct. Civ. No. 2021-0178 GARCIA ) Re: Super. Ct. Civ. No. 9RV/2021 (STX) Appellant ) ) ) JULIA G. SERGENT )