Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION WILLIAM D. QUARLES, JR., District Judge. Robert Hossfeld and Christopher Legg (“the Plaintiffs”) sued Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”) for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”).1 Pending are GEI-CO’s motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs’ motion to file a surreply, and the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to initiate limited early dis

MEMORANDUM J. FREDERICK MOTZ, District Judge. Plaintiff Steven Clarke brings this suit against his former employer, DynCorp International LLC, under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (“FEPA”), Md.Code, State Gov’t Art., § 20-606(a), alleging race discrimination, retaliation, and a retaliatory hostile w

MEMORANDUM OPINION WILLIAM D. QUARLES, JR., District Judge. Lakesha Ruffin sued Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Lockheed”) in the Circuit Court for Howard County for employment discrimination. ECF No. 2. Lockheed removed to this Court. ECF No. 1. Pending are Lockheed’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, ECF No. 36, and Ruffin’s motion for leave to amend her complaint, ECF No. 44. No hearing is necessary. Lo

505 F.Supp.2d 303 (2007) WYETH, Plaintiff, v. LUPIN LTD. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants. Civil No. WDQ-07-0632. United States District Court, D. Maryland, Northern Division. September 11, 2007. *304 Michael B. MacWilliams, Venable LLP, Baltimore, MD, Basil J. Lewris, Robert D. Litowitz, Finnegan Henderson Farabow Gar

MEMORANDUM OPINION WILLIAM D. QUARLES, JR., District Judge. Patricia Mitchell Tracey and Larry Austin (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, sued First American Title Ins. Co. (“First American”)1 for violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962, and other claims. For the following r

MEMORANDUM OPINION WILLIAM D. QUARLES, JR., District Judge. Joseph Weigel sued the State of Maryland and Armistead Homes Corporation (“Armistead”) for declaratory and injunctive relief. ECF No. 1. On September 12, 2012, Weigel moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction. ECF Nos. 2, 3. On October 15, 2012, Weigel and others1 (collectively, the “P

LOGAN, Circuit Judge. This case constitutes another chapter in the litigious saga of the Uranium Mill Tail-ings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTR-CA), Pub.L. No. 95-604, 92 Stat. 3021 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.).1 Here, industry petitioners Quivi-*1248ra Mining Company, Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, Hom

866 F.2d 1246 29 ERC 1055, 19 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,778 QUIVIRA MINING COMPANY, Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation,Homestake Mining Company of California, and UnitedNuclear Corporation, Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION and UnitedStates of America, Respondents,New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division, Intervenor. No. 85-2853.

COFFIN, Circuit Judge. This case comes to us on cross-appeals from a final judgment in which the district court, on the basis of a special jury verdict, held that defendants Forster Mfg. Co. and Theodore R. Hodgkins 1 vio-lated section 2 of the Sherman Act and section 2(a)

Williams, J. On November 14, 1947, the defendant and one Ralph P. Dupont were found guilty of murder in the second degree on an indictment which charged “that Ralph P. Dupont and Michael F. Coggins, the younger of that name, on the first day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty-seven at Lowell, in the County of Middlesex aforesaid, did assault and beat Mario Grimolizzi with intent to kill and murde

26 Cal.App.2d 664 (1938) MAUDE HUBBERT et al., Appellants, v. AZTEC BREWING COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent. Civ. No. 2031. California Court of Appeals. Fourth Appellate District. June 2, 1938. Meserve, Mumper, Hughes & Robertson for Appellants. Mathes & Sheppard, Wright, Monroe, Thomas & Glenn and Wright, Monroe & Harden for Responde