Cases

469 B.R. 250 (2012) James Joseph MELUZIO, Appellant, v. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., Appellee. Mary Katherine Romeo, and Thomas Joseph Romeo, Appellants, v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Appellee. Tina Kay Jones, and Jason Michael Jones, Appellants, v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Appellee. Civil Action Nos. 1:11CV58, 1:11CV59, 2:11CV33. Bankruptcy Nos. 1:10BK2083, 1:10BK1814, 2:10BK1935. Adversary

[Cite as State ex rel. Capital One Bank (USA) N.A. v. Karner, 2011-Ohio-6439.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96739 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA) N.A.

The Supreme Court of South Carolina The State, Respondent, v. Timothy Ray Jones Jr., Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2019-001008 ORDER After careful consideration of Appellant's petition for rehearing, the Court grants the petition for rehearing on Issue I, dispenses with further briefing, and substitutes the attached opinion for the opinion previously filed in this matter. The Court denies

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court The State, Respondent, v. Timothy Ray Jones Jr., Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2019-001008 Appeal from Lexington County Eugene C. Griffith Jr., Circuit Court Judge Opinion No. 28145 Heard November 9, 2021 – Filed March 29, 2023 AFFIRME

302 S.W.3d 515 (2009) J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., successor by merger to Bank One, N.A.; and Michael Bobinchuck, Appellants, v. TEXAS CONTRACT CARPET, INC.; Gypsum Floors of Texas, Inc.; and Agape Round Rock Housing, Inc., d/b/a Chandler Creek Apartments, Appellees. No. 03-05-00629-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin. December 11, 2009.

Acevedo v Citibank, N.A. (2024 NY Slip Op 24091) [*1] Acevedo v Citibank, N.A. 2024 NY Slip Op 24091 Decided on March 25, 2024 Supreme Court, Bronx County Hummel, J. Published by New York State Law Reporti

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER HARRINGTON, Senior District Judge. Count One of the Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Complaint sets forth an allegation of an overarching conspiracy on the part of the Defendants, who are private equity firms, “to allocate the market for and artificially fix, maintain, or stabilize prices of securities in club LB Os in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.” Plaintiffs are

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER EDWARD F. HARRINGTON, Senior District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Settled and Released Claims and Time-Barred Claims from the Fifth Amended Complaint. The Court allows-in-part and denies-in-part the Defendants’ motion. Releases. After a review of the memoranda of the parties and releases submitted i

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER HARRINGTON, Senior District Judge. Proposed intervenor, the New York Times Company moves to intervene in this case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b), and to unseal the Fifth Amended Complaint and its associated exhibits. On July 30, 2009, the Court entered a First Amended Stipulated Protective Order to govern discovery in this case. The Protective Order permits any party or non-

PER CURIAM. Jack Harold Jones, Jr. appeals the district court’s 1 order denying a preliminary injunction, and he moves for a stay of his execution scheduled for tonight, April 24, 2017. Jones argues that, because of his specific medical conditions, the administration of the Arkansas Department of Correction’s (“ADC”)

822 F.Supp.2d 678 (2011) TEXAS CAPITAL BANK, N.A., et al., Plaintiffs, v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:09CV-661-H. United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, at Louisville. September 27, 2011. *680 Lea Pauley Goff, Lee A. Webb, Matthew R. Lindblom, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, Louisvill

SECOND DIVISION MILLER, P. J., MERCIER and COOMER, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. Please refer to the Supreme Court of Georgia Judicial Emergency Order of March 14, 2020 for further

ORDER D.P. MARSHALL JR., District Judge. Emmanuel Ilodianya is suing Capital One Bank for alleged Fair Credit Reporting Act violations, defamation of credit, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Ilodianya asks, among other things, for declaratory relief against Capital One — he wants the company to correct any remaining false information on his credit report. Capital One moves to dismiss. The

760 F.Supp.2d 196 (2011) Kirk DAHL, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. BAIN CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 07-12388-EFH. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. January 13, 2011. Arthur L. Shingler, III, Hal Cunningham, Scott & Scott LLP, George C. Aguilar, Brian J. Robbins, Rob

967 S.W.2d 419 (1998) BANK ONE, TEXAS, N.A., Bonnet Resources Corporation, Trendmaker, Inc., and Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company, Appellants, v. Maco STEWART and Leisure Resorts, Inc., Appellees. No. 14-93-00899-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.). January 29, 1998. Rehearing Overruled March 26, 1998. *

ORDER COUGHENOUR, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter has come before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Capital One’s third-party complaint and Capital One’s motion for leave to file the third-party complaint. Having carefully considered the papers filed by the parties in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court has determined that no oral argument shall be

425 F.Supp.2d 744 (2006) Horace DEAVILLE v. CAPITAL ONE BANK, et al. No. Civ.A. 03-1429. United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division. March 30, 2006. *745 *746 David A. Szwak, Bodenheimer Jones & Szwak, James Patrick Bodenheimer, Shreveport, LA, for Horace Deaville.</

Opinion issued February 27, 2025 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-22-00573-CV ——————————— PRESTON MARSHALL, INDIVIDUALLY AND RUSK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., Appellants V. MAR

OPINION GOULD, Circuit Judge: We confront issues concerning whether and how the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Martinez v. Ryan, - U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012), affects the standards for when a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (“Rule 60(b)”) motion may be filed, and for when a second or successive 28 U.S.C.

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2597 AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION; STEVEN LOWE; FRED EDWORDS; BISHOP MCNEILL, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION, Defendant – Appellee,