Cases

OPINION LUCERO, Circuit Judge: David Hildes appeals from a district court order denying leave to amend his complaint. Hildes sought to add a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77k, against former outside directors of Peregrine Systems, Inc. (“Peregrine”). The district court concluded that amendment would be futile because t

LASKER, District Judge. Third party defendants Industrial Tectonics, Inc. (“ITI”), ITI Holding Corporation, Helmut Stem, Robert A. Gockel, Frederick J. Malecki, and Jim Babcock, move to dismiss the third party complaint of defendant Arthur Andersen pursuant to Rule 9 and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I. ITI manufactures precision ball products and high performa

Madsen, C.J. ¶43 (concurring) I agree with the majority that the petition of M.W.’s step-grandfather, John Shmil-enko, must be dismissed under the circumstances of this case. I write separately to emphasize that in my view because Mr. Shmilenko was not a party in the original custody proceeding that yielded the original order entered on March 23, 2010 establishing custody and visitation rights concerning M.W., Mr. Shmilenko m

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE FARADAY FUTURE CONSOLIDATED INTELLIGENT ELECTRIC INC. C.A. No. 2022-0845-LWW STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION MEMORANDUM OPINION Date Submitted: November 6, 2024 Date Decided: February 10, 2025 Michael Hanrahan, Corinne Elise Amato, Kevin H. Davenport, Eric J. Juray & Seth T. Ford, PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A., Wilmington, Delaw

669 F.Supp. 163 (1987) ALEXANDER GRANT & COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Robert B. McALISTER, et al., Defendants. and Connie J. HARRIS, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, v. Jose L. GOMEZ, et al., Third-Party Defendants. Grant THORNTON, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Marvin L. WARNER, Sr., et al. Third-Party Defendants. No. 1-85-1068. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, W.D.

ORDER JOAN N. ERICKSEN, District Judge. This matter is an employment discrimination case brought by Plaintiff Philip Sieden against his former employer, Chi-potle Mexican Grill, Inc. Sieden, who is an openly gay man and was 49 at the time he was terminated by Chipotle, has filed reprisal, age discrimination, and sexual orientation discrimination claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn.

Adkins, J. In this appeal we revisit the elusive economic loss doctrine, to decide whether to extend a duty in tort to persons not in privity for the recovery of purely economic losses. Petitioner, a general contractor who successfully bid for work on a City of Baltimore construction project, argues that Respondent, the project’s des

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 174 This appeal is brought by third-party defendant Marvin L. Warner, Sr. from a judgment of the Ohio Court of Claims approving a settlement agreement between plaintiff, Connie J. Harris, and defendant and third-party plaintiff Grant Thornton. The judgment barred the assertion or prosecution against Grant Thornton of

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS SUSAN ILLSTON, United States District Judge Defendants have brought motions to dismiss the claims of Lead Plaintiff Fitbit Investor Group. Dkt. Nos. 107, 110. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-l(b), the Court determines that this matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing set for October 28, 2016. For the reasons set forth b

Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. KNUTSON 823 Cite as 288 Neb. 823 and should not be considered on remand. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. R eversed and remanded for further proceedings. State of Nebraska, appellee, v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiffs in this consolidated class action charge Defendant Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. (“Marrone Bio”); certain of its officers and directors; and its public auditor, Ernst & Young (“EY”), with violating federal securities laws. According to Plaintiffs, they were defrauded of millions of investment dollars based on the fi

137 Nev., Advance Opinion lg. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA ROMAN HILDT, No. 79605 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILE CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOINER, District Judge. This matter comes before the court on defendant and counter-plaintiff’s, the Superintendent of the Ohio Division of Savings and Loan Associations (Harris), motion to certify counter-defendant class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. The parties having fully briefed the issues, the court will rule on this motion without conducting oral argument. See L

780 N.W.2d 416 (2010) 279 Neb. 615 DAVENPORT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, appellee, v. 75TH & DODGE I, L.P., et al., appellants. No. S-09-387. Supreme Court of Nebraska. March 26, 2010. *419 Heather Voegele-Andersen and Elisa Davies, of Koley Jessen, P.C., L.L.O., Omaha, for appellants. Joseph E. Jones

Opinion issued May 31, 2024 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-22-00396-CV ——————————— IN RE C.J.S., A CHILD On Appeal from the 387th District Court

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES, WILLIAM J. YUNG AND MARTHA A. YUNG: Michael D. Risley, Bethany A. Breetz, Matthew W. Breetz, Louisville, Stites & Harbison, PLLC. COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE, THE 1994 WILLIAM J. YUNG FAMILY TRUST: Gerald F. Dusing, Covington, Adams, Stepner, Woltermann & Dusing, PLLC. COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT, GRANT THORNTON, LLP: Sheryl G. Snyder, Griffin Terry Sumner, Ther

OPINION QUIST, District Judge. Plaintiffs-appellants in this securities fraud case are investors in the stock of Intrenet, Inc. (“Intrenet” and the “Company”). Defendants-appellees are two Intrenet officers (the “Individual Defendants”) and Intrenet’s outside auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP (“Andersen”). Plaintiffs’ amended consolidated class action complai

MEMORANDUM, ORDER, AND JUDGMENT JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge: Table of Contents I. Introduction. .439 II. Ripeness_ .440 TTT TTsr-t.s .440 i i ' A. The Bathtub: People’s Exhibit 11. ^ 4^ I — 1 B. The Bathtub: People’s Exhibit. 12. ^ fO C. The Bathtub: People’s Exhibit 13. ^ w D. Admis

530 F.Supp.2d 1352 (2008) In re: PEREGRINE SYSTEMS, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION. MDL No. 1889. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. January 2, 2008. Before JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman, D. LOWELL JENSEN, ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., DAVID R. HANSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ, KATHRYN H. VRATIL and ANTHONY J. SCIRICA[*], Judges of the Panel.

ORDER DIANE J. HUMETEWA, District Judge Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Relator’s First Amended Complaint (“AC”) with prejudice by defendants Microsemi Corporation and White Electronic Designs Corporation (“WEDC”) (Doc. 34) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and Fed. R. Civ.P. 9(b).1 I. Background A. Procedural