Cases

JOSEPH C. SPERO, Chief Magistrate Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Luis Castillo brings a putative class action against Defendants CleanNet USA, Inc. ("CleanNet") and D&G Enterprises, Inc. dba CleanNet of the Bay Area and CleanNet of San Jose ("D&G"), asserting claims under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA"),

*956ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 16 JOSEPH C. SPERO, Chief Magistrate Judge I. INTRODUCTION “The use of child slave labor in the Ivory Coast is a humanitarian tragedy.” Doe I v. Nestle USA, Inc., 766 F.3d 1013, 1016 (9th Cir.2014), The fact that major international corporations source ing

807 F.Supp.2d 885 (2011) ORACLE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DRUGLOGIC, INC., Defendant. No. C 11-00910 JCS. United States District Court, N.D. California. August 8, 2011. *888 Christina Marie Von Der Ahe, Indra Neel Chatterjee, Karen G. Johnson-McKewan, Michael C. Spillner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, San Fra

FASCIALE, J.A.D. *617This appeal requires us to decide whether to invalidate an arbitration agreement because the parties failed to identify any arbitration forum and any process for conducting the arbitration. In general, a forum is the mechanism - or setting - that parties use to arbitrate their dispute. They could have designated an arbitra

A petition for certification of the judgment in A-002580-17 having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same; It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted.

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE JOSEPH C. SPERO, Chief Magistrate Judge I. INTRODUCTION In preparation for a jury trial that commences on May 31, 2016, the parties have filed fifteen motions in limine (“the Motions”). The Court’s rulings on the Motions are set forth below.1 II. ANALYSIS Many of the parties’ motions in limi

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NANCY F. ATLAS, District Judge. This insurance coverage case is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff The Burlington Insurance Company (“TBIC”) has filed an opposed Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #26] (“TBIC’s Motion”). JCI has also filed an opposed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. # 30] (“JCI’s Motion”). These motjons are ripe for co

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Melanie Barber, Robert and Esther Malone, and R. Grace Rodriguez bring this action against Nestlé USA, Inc., and Nestlé Purina Petcare Co. (together, “Nestlé”) for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 et seq.

731 F.Supp.2d 219 (2010) Frank GUILLEN-GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. JC PENNEY CORP., INC., JC Penney Puerto Rico, Inc., and/or JC Penney Company of Puerto Rico, Inc., Defendant. Civil No. 08-2407 (FAB). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. August 16, 2010. *220 Manuel Duran-Rodriguez, Manuel Duran Law Office, San Juan, PR, fo

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge: For ninety years, it has been settled law that garbage collection and disposal is a core function of local government in the United States. At their option, cities may provide garbage pick-up to their citizens directly (that is, through town employees or an independent contractor), or they may rely on a closely regulated private market to provide those services. In 1905, the Supreme Court t

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § GESPA NICARAGUA, S.A., § No. 08-22-00244-CV Appellant, § Appeal from the v. §

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; ORDER ENTERING JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF Re: ECF Nos. 234, 235, 236 JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge This patent infringement case was tried to a jury in December 2014. ECF No. 189. On December 17, 2014, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff Ase-tek Danmark A/S, finding that Defendant CMI USA, Inc.’s products infringed

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § GESPA NICARAGUA, S.A., § No. 08-22-00244-CV Appellant, § Appeal from the v.

688 S.E.2d 631 (2009) RAINBOW USA, INC. v. CUMBERLAND MALL, LLC. No. A09A0831. Court of Appeals of Georgia. September 21, 2009. Reconsideration Denied December 16, 2009. *632 Drew, Eckl & Farnham, Joseph C. Chancey, Atlanta, for appellant. Andre & Blaustein, Luke A. Kill, Atlanta, for appellee.

January 28 2014 DA 13-0249 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2014 MT 25N LAZY JC RANCH, LLC, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CHARLIE DONNES, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twenty-Second Judicial District,

484 F.Supp.2d 561 (2007) Danny R. ROBERTSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:06cv3-KS-MTP. United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Hattiesburg Division. April 19, 2007. *562 Thomas T. Buchanan, Tucker Buchanan, Attorney, April C. Ladner, Deidra J. Bassi, Hortman, Har

139 S.W.3d 455 (2004) J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Gayle G. PITTS, et al., Appellees. No. 13-02-540-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg. July 15, 2004. As corrected on Overruling of Rehearing August 12, 2004. *456 Frank E. Weathered, Dunn & Weathered, Corpus Christi, Ja

Justice WILLETT delivered the opinion of the Court. Texas, cellphone users help fund the State’s 911 emergency networks via two distinct “e911 fee” statutes. The first, enacted in 1997, imposes on wireless subscribers a $0.50/month “emergency service fee” 1 collected on the customer’s bill. The seco

OPINION SIMANDLE, Chief Judge: I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Charlene Martinez brings this putative class action against Defendants TD Bank USA, N.A. (“TD Bank”) and Target Corporation (“Target”), alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227; the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788-1788.33; and California

79 F.Supp.2d 1350 (1999) Natalie BARON, Plaintiff, v. BEST BUY CO., INC., a Minnesota corporation; Beneficial National Bank USA, a federal bank, nationally chartered; Union Fidelity Life Insurance Co., Inc., an Illinois corporation; and Virginia Surety Co. a Virginia corporation, Defendants. No. 99-1297-CIV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division. December 1