Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MORTON DENLOW, United States Magistrate Judge. I. INTRODUCTION In April 1999, Vardon Golf Company, Inc. (“Vardon” or “Plaintiff’) initiated this patent infringement action involving a golf club head against Karsten Manufacturing Corporation (“Karsten” or “Defendant”). Following a jury trial before Judge David H. Coar, the jury rendered a verdict in

613 F.Supp.2d 670 (2009) LEVITON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff v. SHANGHAI MEIHAO ELECTRIC, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil No. AMD 05-889. United States District Court, D. Maryland. May 12, 2009. *677 Steven Edward Tiller, Gregory Milton Stone, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP, Baltimore, MD, James T. Hosmer, Joseph S.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 478 CA 12-01827 PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. SUE/PERIOR CONCRETE & PAVING, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V OPINION AND ORDER LEWISTON GOLF COURSE CORPORATION, SENECA NIAGARA FALLS GAMING CORPORATION, SENECA GAMING CORPORATION, JEFFREY L. GILL, MARK I. HALFTOWN, GLORIA HERON, MAURICE A. JOHN, SR., MICHAEL L

CLECKLEY, Justice, concurring: I believe the majority made two errors regarding appellate review. This petition should have been dismissed as improvidently granted simply because it was not ripe for our consideration. The “ ‘[l]iberal allowance’ ” of extraordinary writs “ ‘degrades the prominence of the trial’ ” and it undermines our statutory provisions limiting appellate review to final judgments. Br

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge WILLIAMS wrote the opinion, in which Judge LUTTIG and Judge CHASANOW joined. OPINION WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge: Appellant Hung P. Nguyen filed this diversity action against his former employer, the CNA Corporation (CNA), after CNA refused Nguyen’s request to return to employment with the company

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Victor A. Bolden, DISTRICT JUDGE Erica Bento and Melissa Dubiel (together “Plaintiffs”) have brought this action against their former employer, the City of Milford (“the City”), and their former supervisor, Ms. Lisa Diamond Graham (together “Defendants”). In their Second Amended Complaint against Defendants, Ms. Bento and Ms. Dubiel allege various federal c

500 F.Supp.2d 885 (2007) ROWE INTERNATIONAL CORP. and Arachnid, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. ECAST, INC., Rock-Ola Manufacturing Corp., and View Interactive Entertainment Corp., Defendants. No. 06 C 2703. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. May 14, 2007. *886 *887 James P. M

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PATTI B. SARIS, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Defendants move for summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,686,738 (the '738 patent), which relates to a two-step method of preparing gallium-nitride (GaN) films, a common component of blue-colored light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The invalidity dispute involves the “non-single crystalline buffer layer” limitat

390 F.Supp.2d 952 (2005) AVENTIS PHARMA S.A. and AVENTIS PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Plaintiffs, v. AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendants. Nos. EDCV03-887 RT(SGLX), EDCV04-333 RT (SGLX). United States District Court, C.D. California, Eastern Division. July 25, 2005. *953 Richard J. Smith, Finneg

822 F.Supp.2d 1144 (2011) SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. George David GORDON, Joshua Wayne Lankford, and Dean Joseph Sheptycki, Defendants. Case No. 09-CV-0061-CVE-FHM. United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma. September 28, 2011. *1149 Alan Marc Lieberman, Matthew L. Skidmore, Securities and Exchange Commis

511 F.Supp.2d 624 (2007) Victor J. CAPONEY, Plaintiff, v. ADA ENTERPRISES, INC. and Artemio Aranda, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. CleanSite Services, Inc., Third-Party Defendant. C.A. No. 8:06-435. United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division. September 21, 2007. *625 Amy Elizabeth

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MORTON DENLOW, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs Equity Residential et al. (collectively “Equity”) have moved to compel Defendant Connecticut Specialty Insurance Company (“Connecticut Specialty”) to produce documents listed on Connecticut Specialty’s privilege log. Connecticut Specialty has produced several documents listed on its log, but otherwise objects to

2023 IL App (5th) 230035 NOTICE Decision filed 01/31/23. The text of this decision may be NO. 5-23-0035 changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Peti ion for Rehearing or the disposition of IN THE the same. APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT _______________________________________________________________

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

*440ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL1 BAKER, United States Magistrate Judge. I. Background. The work product privilege and the attorney-client privilege may both be waived by disclosures to third parties. As this case points out, however, the standard applied in determining waiver varies de

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 159] IRENE M. KEELEY, District Judge. Pending before the Court is the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of the plaintiffs, Dey, L.P. and Dey Inc. (collectively “Dey”). (Dkt. No. 159). Dey seeks summary judgment as to whether the proposed production and marketing of a generic version of Perforomist® by the defendants, Tev

Jeffrey Cole, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The parties in this insurance coverage case, who are also counsel in the case before Judge Feinerman, 17 C 1995, have a dispute about the discoverability of a very substantial number of emails. The parties have agreed that the ruling here is applicable to both cases.

907 A.2d 175 (2006) 394 Md. 519 Kenneth D. SCHISLER, et al. v. STATE of Maryland. No. 140 September Term, 2005. Court of Appeals of Maryland. September 14, 2006. *176 Andrew Radding and Gregory M. Kline H. Scott Jones of Adelberg, Budow, Dorf & Hendler, L.L.C., Baltimore, MD, David R. Thompson and Bryn

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MORTON DENLOW, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff David Groehocinski, in his capacity as the Chapter 7 trustee for the bankruptcy estate of CMGT, Inc., (“Plaintiff’), has moved for a protective order to prohibit the production of privileged documents to Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B. Given, and Charles W. Trautner (“Defendants”). Plainti

750 F.Supp.2d 962 (2010) TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. ESPEED, INC., Espeed International, Ltd., Ecco LLC, and EccoWare, Ltd., Defendants. No. 04 C 5312. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. October 29, 2010. *965 Paul A. Kafadar, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff, Paul H