Cases

JOHN A. HOUSTON, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION Presently before the Court are Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.'s ("Defendant" or *1142"Capital One") Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC') pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc.

In an alleged price-fixing conspiracy, each overt act that is part of the violation and that injures the plaintiff starts the statutory period running again, regardless of the plaintiff's knowledge of the alleged illegality at much earlier times. Plaintiffs may only recover damages based on acts falling within the statutory period, and not based on previous acts. Merced Irrigation Dist. v. Barclays Bank PLC ,

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE CUNNINGHAM “One of the basic principles, one of the glories, of the American system of justice is that the cotirthouse door is open to everyone—the humblest 'citizen, the indigent, the convicted felon, the illegal alien.” N.A.A.C.P. v. Meese, 615 F.Supp. 200, 205-06 (D.D.C.1985). We granted discretionary review óf this case to address/the prevalence of

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA KK REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT No. 81532 FUND, LLC, Appellant, vs. FILE CAPITAL ONE, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO ING BANK, FSB, Res • ondent.

133 Nev., Advance Opinion 45 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA AMY FACKLAM, No. 70786 Appellant, vs. HSBC BANK USA, A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR FILED DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES

133 Nev., Advance Opinion 45 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA AMY FACKLAM, No. 70786 Appellant, vs. HSBC BANK USA, A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR FILED DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WALLBUILDER PRESENTATIONS, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 23-3695 (BAH) RANDY CLARKE, in his official capacity as Judge Beryl A. Howell General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Defendant.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1714 Doc: 56 Filed: 06/14/2022 Pg: 1 of 37 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-1714 WILLIAM THORPE; FREDERICK HAMMER; DMITRY KHAVKIN; GERALD MCNABB; GARY WALL; VERNON BROOKS; BRIAN CAVITT; DEREK CORNELISON; CHRI

CLARK, Justice. |,The issue presented in this matter arose in connection with a motion to rank creditors in a suit for executory process. The district court held a notarial act which cancelled a mortgage could be corrected by an act of correction under La. R.S. 35:2.1 and the lender which erroneously cancelled the mortgage maintained its rank relative to a subsequent mortgage under the statute’s provisions. The court of appeal

MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *1194In this employment action, plaintiff Robert Collier, Jr. contends that his former employer, Harland Clarke Corp., terminated his employment and retaliated against him because of his age and disability in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.§ 621 et seq

06-4755- CV Ross v. Bank of America N.A. (USA) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT _____________________ August Term, 2007 (Argued: October 25, 2007 Decided: April 25, 2008) Docket No. 06-4755-cv _____________________ ROBERT ROSS, ANDREA KUNE, WOODRO

WESLEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting: In concluding that a request to cure was not a condition precedent to Morgan Stanley’s repurchase obligation and that issues of fact preclude summary judgment, the majority opinion both misapplies New York law and misreads the plain language of the contract. The result is, in essence, judicial reformation of the agreement, saving a sophisticated party from the requirements of

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL KAISER; MARGARET J. No. 19-35151 LOEWEN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, D.C. No. Plaintiffs-Appellants, 3:16-cv-00744- AC V. CASCADE CAPITAL, LLC; GORDON, OPINION AYLWORTH & TAMIP.C., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 16, 2020 Seattle, Washington Fil

.140 Nev., Advance Opinion 3 11 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, A UTAH No. 84732 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND DANZIG, LTD., A NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF NOMINAL DEFENDANT CAM GROUP FILED

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 2 Highland Capital v. Franklin Nat’l Bank No. 02-5505 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2003 FED App. 0417P (6th Cir.) File Name: 03a0417p.06 DORTCH & DAVIS, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jeffrey Alan Greene, Nashville, Tennessee, for

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER LORETTA C. BIGGS, District Judge. Plaintiff, Scott Landress, brings this diversity action against Defendants Tier One Solar, LLC (“TOS”) 1 SPV Solar One LLC (“SPV”), Isaac B. Horton III (“Horton”), and Ahmed Shaikh (“Shaikh”), alleging state law claims, including violations of'the North Carolina Securities Act. Defendants SPV, Hort

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IBIO, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 10256-VCF ) FRAUNHOFER USA, INC., ) ) Defendant.

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 18-3187 ___________ DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC. v. ANA SHERIDAN; ROY SHERIDAN; DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE ROY SHERIDAN, Appellant ___________ On Appeal from the District Court

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BLUEBLADE CAPITAL OPPORTUNITIES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and BLUEBLADE CAPITAL OPPORTUNITIES CI LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Petitioners, v. : C.A. No. 11184-VCS NORCRAFT COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Date Submitted: April 25, 2018 Date Decided: July 27, 2018 David A. Jenkins, Esquire and Robert K. Beste, Esquire of Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, Delaw

FIFTH DIVISION REESE, P. J., RICKMAN and COLVIN, 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. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules DEADLINES ARE NO LONGER TOLLED IN THIS C