Cases

664 F.Supp.2d 752 (2009) In re FORD MOTOR CO. SPEED COTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGTION. MDL No. 1718. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. September 29, 2009. Order on Clarification and Reconsideration January 4, 2010. *754 Michael A. Caddell, Caddell & Chapman, Houston

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA FORD MOTOR WARRANTY CASES. S279969 Second Appellate District, Division Eight B312261 Los Angeles County Superior Court JCCP No. 4856 July 3, 2025 Justice Corrigan authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans concurred.

Filed 4/21/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE PETER REYNOLDS, Plaintiff and Respondent, A154811 v. (Sonoma County FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Super. Ct. No. SCV254959) Defendant and Appellant. Def

133 Nev., Advance Opinion lye IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA FORD MOTOR COMPANY, No. 67843 Appellant, vs. TERESA GARCIA TREJO, AS THE SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST AND FILED SURVIVING SPOUSE OF RAFAEL

133 Nev., Advance Opinion lye IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA FORD MOTOR COMPANY, No. 67843 Appellant, vs. TERESA GARCIA TREJO, AS THE SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST AND FILED SURVIVING SPOUSE OF RAFAEL

OPINION Opinion by Justice MOSELEY. This is a legal malpractice case. The client, Patriot 1 (plaintiff/appellee) alleged that its former law firm, Thompson & Knight (T & K) (defendant/appellant), failed to discover a gap in legal title to its oil and gas working inte

ORDER DENYING FORD’S MOTION TO DISMISS WILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS, District Judge. THIS' CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford” or “Defendant”)’s Motion to Dismiss [DE 19]. The Court has carefully considered the Motion, Plaintiff Angela Sanchez-Knutson (“Plaintiff’)’s Response [DE 23], Defendant’s Reply [DE 25], arguments by counsel at the hearing on October 2, 2014

23-1108 Singh v. Deloitte LLP UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2023 (Argued: May 24, 2024 Decided: December 10, 2024) No. 23-1108 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– RUPINDER SINGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, JEFFREY S. POPKIN, individually and on

b. Breach of contract Under Virginia law, "[t]he elements of a breach of contract action are (1) a legally enforceable obligation of a defendant to a plaintiff; (2) the defendant's violation or breach of that obligation; and (3) injury or damage to the plaintiff caused by the breach of obligation."9 Ramos v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA ,

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO REMAND BARKER, District Judge. Each of these cases was filed in Mississippi state court and removed by defen*724dant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) to federal district court in Mississippi.1 In each case, defendant Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., (“Firestone”) joined in Ford’s Notice of Removal;

ROBERT C. CHAMBERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE In a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on May 31, 2018, this Court dispensed with a majority of the pending motions in this matter, including the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and related motions in limine. Mem. Op. and Order , ECF No. 118. However, five motions still remain unresolved: (1) Defendant's Omnibus Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Plaintiff's Gene

308 Ga. 74 FINAL COPY S18G1436. HILL, KERTSCHER & WHARTON, LLP et al. v. MOODY et al. BOGGS, Justice. Under longstanding Georgia law, when a client sues his former attorney for legal malpractice, the client impliedly waives the attorney-client privilege with respect to the underlying matter or matters to the extent necessary for the attorney to defend against the legal malpractice claim. The issue presented in this appeal is whether the implied waiver

ORDER R. BROOKE JACKSON, United States District Judge This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 58 [ECF No. 76] and Defendant Knight Transportation, Inc.’s Motion for New Trial Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 59 or in the Alternative Remitti-tur [ECF No. 79]. The Court addresses each motion in turn. BACKGROUND This

MEMORANDUM OPINION PRATTER, District Judge. Jason Collura brings 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Nicholas James Ford, Mary Politano, Steffen Boyd, Steven Austin, Charles Hoyt, and Robert Malvesuto (“Defendants” or “Probation Officer Defendants”) for alleged violation of his due process, First Amendment, and Fourth Amendment rights, as well as several incidental state law claims. In the absence of timely r

2022 IL App (2d) 210785 No. 2-21-0785 Opinion filed December 1, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ IMOTORSPORTS, INC.,

OPINION & ORDER KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge: Defendant FCA U.S. LLC, more commonly known as “Chrysler,” manufactures vehicles that have a key component known as the “Totally Integrated Power Module,” or “TIPM.” The TIPM functions as *216a vehicle’s electronic nerve center, and it is responsible for controlling and distributi

GILMAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with the majority opinion’s holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, I concur in Part IV. of the opinion. I further agree with the majority’s, framework for analyzing motions to compel arbitration as descr

DECISION AND ORDER WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, District Judge. Plaintiff Principal Life Insurance Company (the “Plaintiff’) moves for summary *361judgment against Defendant The Locker Group (the “Defendant”). Plaintiff seeks rescission of life insurance policy number 4639850 (the “Policy”). For the reasons stated below, this Court grants the m

Affirm; Opinion Filed November 24, 2021 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-00850-CV AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Appellant V. SARAH MILBURN, JOHN MILBURN, AND CAROLYN MILBURN, Appellees On Appeal from the 116

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Jeffrey T. Gilbert, United States Magistrate Judge Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) sued three defendants — The Nutmeg Group, LLC (“Nutmeg”); Randall Goulding (“Randall”); and David Goulding (“David”) — alleging violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 80a-l et seq'., and the rules promulgated thereund