Cases

*313 Opinion BENKE, J. This case arises from the 2011 purchase by plaintiff and appellant Michael Z. Tun (Tun) of a used 2007 BMW automobile (vehicle) from defendant and respondent Plus West LA Corporation, doing business as CA Beemers (CA Beemers). Defendant and appellant Well

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 24a0039p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ PREMIER DEALER SERVICES, INC., │

USCA11 Case: 21-10745 Date Filed: 02/08/2022 Page: 1 of 50 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-10745 ____________________ SAVAGE SERVICES CORPORATION, SAVAGE INLAND MARINE, LLC (UTAH), Plaintiffs - Counter-Defendants - Appellants

SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR., District Judge, dissenting. Dealer Computer Services, Inc. (“DCS”) appeals from the district court’s dismissal of its Motion to Confirm the arbitrators’ award finding that Dub Herring Ford and the proposed class of automobile dealers whom it represents (collectively, the “Dealers”) should not be allowed to go forward with their arbitration as a class arbitration. The district court found tha

Robert M. Dow, Jr., United States District Judge Before the Court are Defendant CDK Global, LLC's motion to compel arbitration and stay claims, or, in the alternative, to *520dismiss the dealership consolidated class action complaint [262], and Plaintiffs' unopposed motions for leave to submit supplemental authority [366; 420]. Plaintiffs' unop

650 F.Supp.2d 800 (2009) VEHICLE PROTECTION PLUS, L.L.C., Plaintiff, v. PREMIER DEALER SERVICES, INC., and Great American Insurance Company, Defendants. No. 2:06-cv-241. United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division. June 30, 2009. *802 Jerry W. Laughlin, Todd A. Shelton, Rogers, Laughlin, Nunnally, Hood &am;

REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge: In this appeal we are asked by plaintiff-appellant Prestige Ford (“Prestige” or “Prestige Ford”) to review a district court’s decision upholding a commercial arbitration award rendered in favor of defendant-appellee Ford Dealer Computer Services (“DCS”). For the following reasons, we affirm the dist

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs December 10, 2001 FORREST CATE MOTOR COMPANY, INC. v. DEALER COMPUTER SERVICES, INC. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sequatchie County No. 7464 Buddy Perry, Judge No. M2001-01577-COA-R3-CV - Filed October 16, 2002 Plaintiff appeals a declarat

Philip M. Hess, Judge Introduction Motormax Financial Services Corporation (Motormax) appeals the denial of its motion to compel arbitration of a counterclaim asserted against it by Arnold Knight after Motormax repossessed his vehicle and filed a collection action against him. In two points, Motormax claims the trial court erred in denying its motion based

OPINION MOORE, Circuit Judge. In this action for wrongful termination, Defendant-Appellant Ford Dealer Computer Services, Inc. (“FDCS”) appeals from the judgment entered against it in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Robert Ridgway following a jury verdict in Ridgway’s favor. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Robert Ri

Robert M. Dow, Jr., United States District Judge Before the Court is Defendant CDK Global, LLC's motion to dismiss [259] the amended complaint filed by Plaintiff Loop, LLC. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied. I. Background1 Plaintiff Loop, LLC ("AutoLoop" or "Plaintiff") brings this action on behalf of itself and other automotive softw

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. A contract with an arbitration clause referred to certain parties, including an entity called “Town & Country Auto.” An arbitral panel resolving a payment dispute determined that this referred to a particular car dealership, Town & Country Salida, Inc., and entered an award against it. In the district court below, Town & Country Salida, Inc., sought to vacate or modify the arbitral award on

Robert M. Dow, Jr., United States District Judge Before the Court is Defendant CDK Global, LLC's motion to dismiss [71] the complaint filed by Plaintiffs (1) Cox Automotive, Inc., (2) Autotrader.com, Inc., (3) Dealer Dot Com, Inc., (4) Dealertrack, Inc., (5) HomeNet, Inc., (6) Kelley Blue Book Co., Inc., (7) vAuto, Inc., (8) VinSolutions, Inc., and (9) Xtime, Inc. For the reasons set forth below, the motion [71] is granted in part a

ORDER REGARDING (1) LP AND DBSI’S TWO JOINT DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTERS DATED AUGUST 9, 2012, (2) LP AND DBSI’S JOINT DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 2012, AND (3) DBSI’S TWO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE PORTIONS OF THE AUGUST 9, 2012 LETTERS UNDER SEAL LAUREL BEELER, United States Magistrate Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Louisiana Pacific Corporation (“LP” or

110 B.R. 68 (1990) In re AUTO DEALER SERVICES, INC., Debtor. AUTO DEALER SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. VINCE WHIBBS IMPORTS, INC., Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 84-424-BKC-6P1, Adv. No. 88-163. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division. January 17, 1990. Laurie K. Weatherford, Orlando, Fla., for plaintiff. Raymond J. Rotella, Orlando, Fla

65 B.R. 681 (1986) In re AUTO DEALER SERVICES, INC., Debtor. AUTO DEALERS GROUP, Plaintiff, v. AUTO DEALER SERVICES, INC., Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 84-424-BK-Orl-GP, Adv. No. 85-263. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division. October 14, 1986. *682 Ronald A. Harbert, Orlando, Fla., for plaintiff.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHARP CORPORATION and SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 17-1648 (JEB) HISENSE USA CORPORATION and HISENSE INTERNATIONAL (HONG KONG) AMERICA INVESTMENT CO. LTD., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Should a federal cou

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the Denial of Rehearing En Banc, in which BIRCH, Circuit Judge, joins: I dissent from this court’s decision to let the panel’s ruling stand because I disagree with the panel’s interpretation of the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.1 This law does not empower federal courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over th

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TERADATA CORPORATION; No. 23-16065 TERADATA US, INC.; TERADATA OPERATIONS, INC., D.C. No. 3:18-cv- 03670-WHO Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OPINION SAP SE; SAP AMERICA, INC.; SAP LABS, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United S

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LEON GILBERT and MICHAEL ) MCGARVEY, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2023-0513-PAF ) UNISYS CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant.