Cases

Case: 23-1653 Document: 57 Page: 1 Filed: 03/03/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ DOE NO. 1, Plaintiff-Appellee v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant ______________________ 2023-1653 ______________________ Appeal from the United

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 19-1747C (Filed: January 9, 2023) FOR PUBLICATION *************************************** DOE NO. 1, * * Plaintiff, * * v. *

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 19-1747C (Filed Under Seal: July 26, 2022) (Reissued: August 9, 2022) FOR PUBLICATION *************************************** DOE NO. 1, * * Plaintiff, * * v.

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 19-1878 Filed: May 6, 2020 Reissued: May 22, 20201 ) DOE NO. 1, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Fair Labor Standards Act; Conditional

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 19-1749C (Filed: April 6, 2020) ) DOE NO.1, DOE NO. 2, ) Keywords: Conditional Certification; ) Proposed Notice; Class Action; FLSA; Plaintiffs, ) Overtime Pay; Federal Bureau of

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 19-1749C (Filed: February 5, 2020) ) DOE NO. 1, et al., ) Keywords: Protective Order; Anonymity; ) FLSA; Overtime Pay; Federal Bureau of Plaintiffs, ) Investigation; English Moni

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 19-152C Filed: May 20, 2019 ) DOE NO. 1, et al, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Conditional Certification Of Collective v.

KENNETH A. MARRA, United States District Judge This cause is before the Court upon Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE 361); the United States's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 408); Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion to Compel Answers (DE 348) and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion for Finding Waiver of Work Product and Similar Protections by Government and for Production of Documents (DE 414).

ORDER DENYING GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION & ORDER LIFTING STAY OF DISCOVERY KENNETH A. MARRA, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the court on the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [DE 119], the petitioners’ response in opposition [DE 127] and the government’s reply [DE 147]. For reasons stated below, the court has determ

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Joseph F. Bianco, United States District Judge The United States of America (the “government”) seeks an order compelling John Doe Nos. 1 and 21 (collectively, “respondents”) to comply with two grand jury subpoenas dated December 1, 2016. Respondents oppose the government’s motion on the grounds that production of the documents would violate the Fifth Amendm

In the United States Court of Federal Claims JOHN DOE, No. 19-cv-720 C Plaintiff, Filed Under Seal: April 15, 2021 v. Publication: April 30, 2021 1 THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. Thomas Scott Tufts, Orlando, Florida for Plaintiff. Joseph Alan Pixley,

PARKER, Circuit Judge: Defendant Appellant Andrew Findley appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Alan H. Nevas, Judge). The district court declined to substitute Findley’s trial counsel despite alleged irreconcilable differences between Findley and his counsel. Findley argues that the district court erroneously denied various motions by

JORDAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment: I agree with the excellent opinion of the Majority in all but one respect. Like Judge Rendell and those joining her partial dissent, I cannot join Part IV.A of the Majority Opinion. I have serious doubts about the Majority’s assertion that there was no nonjudicial forfeiture proceeding here and, hence, I also question the conclusion th

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge, dissenting: It has been settled for more than a decade that a custodian of corporate records may not “resist a subpoena for such records on the ground that the act of production would incriminate him in violation of the Fifth Amendment.” Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99, 100, 108 S.Ct. 2284, 101 L.Ed.2d 98 (1988). Relying on our pre-Braswell decision in

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS EDMUND F. BRENNAN, United States Magistrate Judge. This action, in which plaintiffs are proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 72-302(c) (21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). All named defendants have filed motions to dismiss, which, together with plaintiffs’ oppositions, were deemed submitted without oral argument.

Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge Before the Court is the Junction City School District's ("Junction City") Motion *812for Declaratory Judgment, or Alternatively, for Clarification of Previous Orders, or Alternatively, for Modification of Previous Orders. (ECF No. 2). The United States has filed a response to the motion. (ECF No. 2

OPINION RENDELL, Circuit Judge: Congress passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”), Pub.L. No. 106-185, 114 Stat. 202, as a “reaction] to public outcry over the government’s too-zealous pursuit of civil and criminal forfeiture” and as an “effort to deter government overreaching.” United States v. Khan, 497 F.3d 204, 208 (2d Cir.2007).1 To that end

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 21-2140 _______________ JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JANE DOE 1, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant _______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Easter

Chin, J. In 2012, plaintiff, Latrice Rubenstein, filed a claim with defendant Doe No. 1 (defendant), a public entity, alleging that from 1993 to 1994, when she was a high school student, her cross-country and track coach, who was defendant's employee, sexually molested her. When the claim was denied, she commenced the instant action against defendant and defendants Does Nos. 2-20.