Cases

Mark S. Davis, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the Court following a bench trial resulting from an easement dispute in which both parties seek a declaratory judgment. Such dispute arises from Grove Avenue Developers, Inc.'s ("Grove" or "Defendant") desire to construct an asphalt roadway crossing over two high pressure natural gas pipelines (the "Pipelines") operated by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC ("Columb

OPINION AND ORDER J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: This is a collective action for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. (“FLSA”) and a class action for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq. (“ERISA”), and New York state labor laws. Presently before the Court is a motion

CHIN, J. CORRIGAN, J. LIU, J. KRUGER, J. GROBAN, J. JENKINS, J.* Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 26a0093p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ VICTORY GLOBAL, LLC, │ Plaintiff-

STUART M. BERNSTEIN, United States Bankruptcy Judge This case, which arises out of a fatal motor vehicle accident, involves the clash between Alabama law, which limits the recovery in wrongful death actions to punitive damages, and the terms of a Court-approved section 363 sale, which excludes the defendant's liability for punitive damages. FCA US LLC f/k/a/ Chrysler Group LLC ("New Chrysler") moves to enforce the Court's Orde

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER WILLIAMS, Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Third-Party Defendant AM General, LLC’s (“AM General”) motion for leave to supplement its answer to assert the affirmative defense of inequitable conduct. In its proposed supplemental answer, AM General all

John Robert Blakey, United States District Judge Plaintiff Uncommon, LLC sued Defendant Spigen, Inc. for using the trademarked term "Capsule" in the names of its cell phone cases, the same product that Plaintiff sells under the Capsule mark. Plaintiff brings claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act,

SECOND DIVISION MILLER, P. J., RICKMAN and REESE, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules March

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC, No.22-56181 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:19-cv-01710- v. JVS-GJS CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal corporation, ORDER AND AMENDED Defendant-Appellee, OPINION and BR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHARLES MATIELLA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 21-cv-2112 (GMH) MURDOCK STREET LLC, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this case, Plaintiff Charles Matiella alleges that the construction of a multi-unit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMPERSAND PUBLISHING, LLC, Petitioner, v. Case No. 1:21-mc-0140 (GMH) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The merits of the underlying dispute in this

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW GREGORY K. FRIZZELL, Chief Judge. This court has conducted a nonjury trial on the Ninth Claim for Relief in the Third Amended Complaint of plaintiff Skycam, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company1 (“Skycam”) against defendants Patrick J. Bennett (“Bennett”) and Actioneam, LLC (“Actioncam”). Skycam asserted a claim of own

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 20-3434 ____________ FDRLST MEDIA, LLC, Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ____________ No. 20-3492 ____________ NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

01/22/2025 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 29, 2024 Session CHARLES YOUREE, JR. v. RECOVERY HOUSE OF EAST TENNESSEE, LLC ET AL. Appeal by Permission from the Court of Appeals Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 20-11

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE NEW START HOLDINGS, LLC., ) including protected series 22 6th ) Series and 804 Marshall Series and ) CHENXI LI, ) ) Plaintiffs/Counterclaim ) Defendants, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2019-0831-MTZ ) ZI JUN ZHOU, and MARVIN ) DANIELS, as Truste

Opinion and Order JAMES L. GRAHAM, District Judge. This case concerns the enforceability of an agreement signed by landowners to accept a lease offer from Chesapeake Exploration, LLC. Landowners Stephen and Elizabeth Albery signed an Agreement to Accept Lease Offer from Chesapeake on July 16, 2011. Under this Agreement, the Alberys and Chesapeake agreed to execute a 5-year lease for the gas and oil r

OPINION BERZON, Circuit Judge: “The sea, although an agreeable, is a dangerous companion,” wrote Plato more than two millennia ago. Our case is about that danger; it concerns “a brave vessel .,, [d]ash’d all to pieces,” like the ship Prospero hexed in The Tempest. William Shakespeare, The Tempest act 1, sc. 2.

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC, No. 22-56181 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:19-cv-0171f0- v. JVS-GJS CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal corporation, OPINION Defendant-Appellee, and BRANDON STUMP, an individual; RYAN STUMP, an individual; KEITH

Arenda L. Wright Allen, United States District Judge In this patent infringement suit, two corporations hailing from distant states find themselves litigating in the Eastern District of Virginia. This sort of forum shopping in patent litigation has proliferated over the past thirty years. See Daniel Klerman & Greg Reilly, Forum Selling , 89 S. CAL. L. REV. 241, 247-48 (2016). This practice has subjected defenda

Andrew B. Altenburg, Jr., United States Bankruptcy Judge I. INTRODUCTION This court previously determined that a transfer of property to a municipality pursuant to a tax sale and foreclosure, where there was no competitive bidding, can constitute a fraudulent conveyance under 11 U.S.C. § 548