Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER , ANALISA TORRES, United States District Judge In this employment discrimination case, Plaintiffs, H. Christina Chen-Oster, Lisa Parisi, Shanna Orlich, Allison Gamba, and Mary De Luis, allege that their former employer, Defendants Goldman, Sachs <& Co. and the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (collectively, “Goldman Sachs”), violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

JOHNSON, J. _JjThis case involves several causes of action, including breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, and successor company liability, relating to a three-member limited liability corporation (“LLC”). Plaintiffs, the LLC and one member of the LLC, appeal the trial court’s judgment which failed to award damages after finding Defendants, the other two members of the LLC

PAUL KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Roger K. Crosby (“Crosby Plaintiff’), as Trustee of the Crosby Group, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan (the “Plan”), and a group of Individual Retirement Account (“IRA”) holders (collectively, the “Allison Plaintiffs”), filed suit against Defendant-Appellee Bank One-Denver (“Bank One”) alleging violations of federal securities laws, Colorado securities laws, ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 11

*844Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff was entitled to share in the appreciated value of Home Companion Services of New York, Inc. (hereinafter Home Companion Services), which the defendant incorporated approximately three years prior to the marriage. Separate property includes “property acquired before [the] marriage” (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d] [1]), s

KERN, Justice. [¶ 1.] Defendant was indicted for eight drug-related offenses in March 2014 and convicted of seven of the eight counts. On appeal, defendant contends she is entitled to a new trial because the trial court erred by amending the indictment the day prior to trial. Defendant also argues she was prejudiced when the trial court failed to notify the parties of a jury que

223 P.3d 456 (2009) 2009 UT App 365 Chad Jason HANSON, Petitioner and Appellee, v. Allison Sara HANSON, Respondent and Appellant. No. 20070575-CA. Court of Appeals of Utah. December 10, 2009. *457 Scott L. Wiggins, Salt Lake City, for Appellant. Bradley G. Nykamp, Salt Lake City, for Appellee. <

392 F.Supp.2d 419 (2005) DIRECTV, INC., v. Nasrin GOLLY, Juan Cruz, Terry Demott, Steven Garlow, Tom Mosano, Allison Corona, Anna Jones, Defendants. No. 5:03CV644 (HGM/GJD). United States District Court, N.D. New York. September 30, 2005. *420 Garvey Schubert Barer, Attorneys for Plaintiff, New York, NY, Mario Aieta, Esq., Robert

FILED May 12, 2022 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA In re N.S

ORDER ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge. Currently before the Court is Glaxosmithkline LLC’s motion for summary judgment (# 59). For the following reasons, the Court grants Glaxosmithkline LLC’s motion for summary judgment (# 59) in its entirety. BACKGROUND In November 2011, Defendant Glaxosmithkline LLC filed a petition for removal and attached the complaint fro

138 Nev., Advance Opinion 14 I IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA SR CONSTRUCTION, INC., A NEVADA No. 82786 DOMESTIC CORPORATION, Appellant, vs. FILE 011 PEEK BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC., A NEVADA DOMESTIC JUN

[Cite as State v. Wright, 2014-Ohio-985.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2012-08-152 Plaintiff-Appellee, : OPINION

PER CURIAM. The appellants are appealing from a final decree entered by the trial court, sitting without jury, in which he found that appellants had entered into a contract with appellees wherein appellants charged usurious interest. The trial court, under the authority of Florida Statutes 687.07, F.S. A., cancelled the mortgage held by appellant, Tampa Bay Terminal, Inc., and ordered appellants to repay to appellees the sum o

286 F.Supp.2d 625 (2003) SEALY, INC., as Plan Administrator for the Sealy, Inc. PPO Plan, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Allison Barman, Bruce Barman, Defendants. No. 1:02 CV 217. United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina. September 29, 2003. *626 Debbie

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TRACY RANDLE et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 18-1525 (TJK) SUNTRUST BANK, INC. et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Four named plaintiffs sue on behalf of a class of African American financial advisors em- ployed by Defendants, which the Court r

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge: Plaintiffs Judy Calibuso (“Calibuso”), Julie Moss (“Moss”), Dianne Goedtel (“Goedtel”), Jean Evans (“Evans”) and Mary DeSalvatore (“DeSalvatore”) (collectively “plaintiffs”) commenced this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against Bank of America Corporation (“BofA,” “BOA” or “Bank of America”), Merrill Lynch & Co.

DeMOSS, Circuit Judge: In this insurance dispute, the estate of a deceased ERISA plan participant and the decedent’s ex-wife are battling over the proceeds to an ERISA plan providing life insurance benefits. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Audrey Allison Hayes, who is both the decedent’s ex-wife and the named beneficiary under the polic

The opinion of the court was delivered by LIHOTZ, J.A.D. We are asked to consider the role of resource parents in the Family Part’s determination of the best interests of a child in the legal custody of plaintiff, the Division of Youth and Family Services (Division). Resource parents L.C. and S.Z. appeal from two Family Part orders. The first order, dated March 21, 2011, denied L.C. and S.Z.’s request to int

[Cite as State v. Kramer-Kelly, 2023-Ohio-1031.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 111233 v. : BRIAN KRAMER-KELLY, :

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, Senior District Judge 1. INTRODUCTION Appellants Eldar Brodski Zardinovsky and others (collectively “plaintiffs”)1 filed this appeal on July 19, 2016. (D.I. 1) The appeal arises from an opinion and order entered by the bankruptcy court on July 13, 2016 dismissing a post-petition adversary proceeding complaint filed by plaintiffs a

JAMES L. ROBART, United States District Judge *1228I. INTRODUCTION Before the court are three motions to exclude filed by the parties: (1) Defendant Microsoft Corporation's ("Microsoft") motion to exclude Dr. Henry S. Farber's expert opinions (Farber Mot. (Dkt. # 362) ); (2) Plaintiffs Katherine Moussouris, Holly Muenchow, a