Cases

Appellate Case: 23-1189 Document: 010111079946 Date Filed: 07/16/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH July 16, 2024 UN

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED; and Opinion Filed February 2, 2024 In the Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-01231-CV HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS, INC., OZARK MOUNTAIN POULTRY, INC., AND FIELDALE FARMS CORPORATION, Appellants V. SOMMA FOOD GROUP, LLC, Appellee On

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SACHS'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENTBETH LABSON FREEMAN, United States District Judge *1074Plaintiff Justin Griffin filed this labor class action on behalf of himself and other workers involved in the construction of the California Flats Solar Project in C

Filed 11/30/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR RACHEL MONIZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, A159410 & A160133 v. ADECCO USA, INC., (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 17-CIV- Defendant and 01736) Re

747 F.Supp.2d 265 (2010) Walter MERCADO-SALINAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BART ENTERPRISES INTERNATIONAL, LTD., et al., Defendants. Civil No. 09-1509 (GAG/BJM). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. September 27, 2010. *267 Carmen J. Cuetos, Carlos A. Velasquez, Velasquez & Cuetos, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, Nestor Mend

Filed 8/25/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE CHAD STARKS, B288005, B292643 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC590955) v. VORTEX INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant and Respondent; ADOLFO HERRERA, Movant and Ap

*1083Opinion CROSKEY, Acting P. J. Plaintiffs Chantal Coprich and Jeffrey J. Coprich, Jr., through Chantal Coprich as his guardian ad litem, challenge an order granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual) and Board Ford, Inc. (Board Ford), against a cause of action for negligent spoliation o

765 F.Supp.2d 143 (2011) Migdalia MAGRIZ and Silvia Rivera, Plaintiffs, v. UNION DE TRONQUISTAS DE PUERTO RICO, LOCAL 901, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a Labor Organization, Defendant. Civil No. 10-1201 (ADC). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. February 18, 2011. *145 Linda Backiel, Linda Backiel Law Office,

DECISION AND ORDER ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, District Judge. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs bring this action alleging violations of the New York Minimum Wage Act, New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) §§ 650 et seq., and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., for Defendants’ alleged failure to pay minimum wages to Plaintiffs. (Dkt. 82).

DECISION and ORDER GLENN T. SUDDABY, District Judge. Currently before the Court in this employment discrimination action filed pro se by Rick E. Skinner (“Plaintiff’) is a motion for summary judgment filed by the City of Amsterdam (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 35.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is granted, and Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

ORDER TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge. Up to 2,000 employees of the City of Jacksonville filed this class action alleging that the.City violated the Americans With *1254Disabilities Act by excluding them from the City’s Retirement System because of “pre existing medical conditions.” At first, the City fell on its sword, agreeing

95 Cal.Rptr.2d 884 (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1081 Chantal COPRICH et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al., Real Parties in Interest. No. B137691. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three. May 19, 2000. Review Denied July 26, 2000.[*]

OPINION AND ORDER MARSH, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Hubei filed his Findings and Recommendation on August 28, 2013. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R.Civ.P. 72(b). When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Ma

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSEPH GIBSON and RUSSEL No. 24-1663 SCHULTZ, D.C. No. 3:23- Plaintiffs-Appellants, cv-00833-HZ v. OPINION CITY OF PORTLAND; MULTNOMAH COUNTY; MULTNOMAH COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; CHRISTOPHER TRAYNOR; ROD UNDERHILL; MIKE SCHMIDT; BRAD KALBAUGH; and SEAN HUGHEY,

815 P.2d 1186 (1991) 112 N.M. 396 Steve ARAGON, Claimant, v. FURR'S INC., Respondent-Appellant, v. Fabian CHAVEZ, New Mexico Superintendent of Insurance, and New Mexico Subsequent Injury Fund, Third-Party Respondents-Appellees. No. 12656. Court of Appeals of New Mexico. June 27, 1991. Certiorari Denied August 9, 1991.

103 F.3d 524 IDS LIFE INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,andAmerican Express Financial Advisors, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee,v.SUNAMERICA, INC., and Sun Life Insurance Co. of America,Defendants-Appellants,andRoyal Alliance Associates, Inc., and Sunamerica Securities,Inc., Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees. Nos. 96-2314, 96-2871. United States Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER James 0. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand and Memorandum in Support Thereof, filed March 23,-2016 (Doc. 8)(“Motion”). The Court held a hearing on July 11, 2016. The primary issue is whether the Court should remand the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, b

61 F.Supp.2d 1150 (1999) Luke E. McCLURG, Plaintiff, v. GTECH CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 95-4193-SAC. United States District Court, D. Kansas. July 22, 1999. *1151 *1152 Cheryl D. Myers, Michael B. Myers, Myers & Myers, Topeka, KS, for plaintiff. Donald S. Lee, Topeka, KS, Thomas E

72 F.3d 138 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order. Van

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROSENTHAL, District Judge. Plaintiffs, present and former employees of defendants QuietFlex Manufacturing Co., L.P., QuietFlex Holding Co., Goodman Manufacturing Co., L.P., and Goodman Holding Co., allege racial and national origin discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The plaintiffs have moved for class ce