Cases

James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed March 23, 2018 (Doc. 27)("MTD"). The Court held a hearing on August 10, 2018. The primary issues are: (i) whether the applicable statutes of limitations bar Plaintiff Janice Nowell's claims against Defendants Medtronic Inc., Covidien PLC, Covidien LP, and Medtronic PLC for negligence, strict

MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe's Report and Recommendation ("R & R" or "Recommendation") (ECF No. 20), recommending that this case be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants had until June 7, 2018, to file an objection. (Id.at 20.) To date, no objection to the R & R has been filed. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R & R with r

OPINION AND ORDER Dan Aaron Polster, United States District Judge Presently before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants PPG Industries, Inc., PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., and PPG Architectural Coatings, LLC (collectively, “Defendants” or “PPG”). (Doc #: 26 (“Motion”)). The Court notes that the Motion does not seek dismissal of all claims. Specifically, Defendants do not seek dismissal of

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION MARGARET M. MORROW, District Judge. On June 28, 2011, Robert Briseno filed a complaint against ConAgra;1 between Oc*938tober and December 2011, the court consolidated several cases filed against ConA-gra under the caption above

*546ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE MARGARET M. MORROW, District Judge. On June 28, 2011, Robert Briseno filed a complaint against ConAgra.1 Between October and December 2011, the court consolidated several eases filed against Co

818 F.Supp.2d 777 (2011) TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP, LP, Plaintiff, v. C.R. BARD, INC., and Davol, Inc., Defendants. Civ. No. 09-264-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. April 29, 2011. *778 Richard D. Kirk, Esquire and Stephen B. Brauerman, Esquire of Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE, for Plaintiff. Of Counsel: Fred H. Bartlit

768 F.Supp.2d 700 (2011) TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP, LP, Plaintiff, v. C.R. BARD, INC., and Davol, Inc., Defendants. Civ. No. 09-264-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. January 20, 2011. *701 Richard D. Kirk, Esquire and Stephen B. Brauerman, Esquire of Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE, Counsel for Plaintiff. Of Counsel: Fred

MEMORANDUM OPINION CONTI, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION........................................................152 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY................................................155 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW................................................156 A. Rule 23 Requirements for Class Certification............................156 <

453 F.3d 1166 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, andKaren Lynn Benson; P.J. Brix, LLC, Claimants-Appellants,v.CAPITAL CONSULTANTS LLC; Jeffrey L. Grayson; Barclay L. Grayson, Defendants,Thomas F. Lennon, Receiver-Appellee.Securities and Exchange Commission; Carolyn L. Arntson; Arntson Family Holdings, LLC; Mary Arntson; Jerry L. Baker; Mary Beth Baker; Karen Lynn Benson; Roderick A. Livesay; Brix Dearmond Llc; John R

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO CERTIFY CLASSES MARGARET M. MORROW, District Judge. On December 21, 2006, plaintiffs Nicola Edwards and James Schley filed an action in this court against defendant Toys “R” Us (“Toys”), alleging that it had violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.1 Specifically, plaintiffs asserted that Toys had violated t

35 Ill. App.3d 596 (1976) 342 N.E.2d 79 NITRIN, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. No. 60987. Illinois Appellate Court — First District (5th Division). Opinion filed January 23, 1976. *597 Hackbert, Rooks, Pitts, Fullagar & Poust and Wildman, Harrold, Allen &

MEMORANDUM OPINION GLEN E. CONRAD, Chief Judge. In this action, which was removed from the Circuit Court of the City of Charlottes-ville, plaintiffs Daisy Tinsley, on behalf of herself and as guardian of her daughter, Kaylee Twyman (“Kaylee”), and Jermaine Twyman assert claims against defendants Heather Streich, M.D. (“Dr. Streich”), Gary Fang, M.D. (“Dr. Fang”), University of Virginia Physicia

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge. Kenneth and Tina Wivell (“the Wivells”) appeal from the district court’s 1 denial of their motion to remand and its dismissal on the merits of their claims against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) and Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C. (“Kozeny”). For the following reasons, we

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

955 F.Supp. 110 (1997) Jack L. DAVOLL; Deborah A. Clair; and Paul L. Escobedo; Plaintiffs, v. Wellington WEBB, in his capacity as the Mayor of the City and County of Denver; The City and County of Denver; David L. Michaud, in his capacity as the Chief of the Denver Police Department; Elizabeth H. McCann, in her capacity as the Manager of Safety for the City and County of Denver; Civil Service Commission, for the City and County of Denver; Defenda

249 S.W.3d 855 (2008) STATE ex rel. The COCA-COLA COMPANY, Relator, v. The Honorable W. Stephen NIXON, Respondent. No. SC 88531. Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc. April 15, 2008. *858 Christopher M. Murphy, Michael A. Pope, McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP, Chicago, IL, John F. Murphy, Lori R. Schultz, Shook Hardy Bacon, LLP, T

MEMORANDUM * In the accompanying per curiam opinion, we dismissed the appeal of one set of appellants, Benson and Brix, LLC, for lack of jurisdiction. This memorandum disposition addresses the merits of the appeal of the remaining appellants, the American Funeral and Cemetery Services, MUDD, and the Mudd Revocable Trust. These appellants challenge the district corut’s order that they must remit their settle

Justice Durham filed an opinion concurring in the result. On Direct Appeal Associate Chief Justice Lee, opinion of the Court: ¶1 Benjamin Rettig pled guilty to aggravated murder and aggravated kidnapping. Three days before his sentencing hearing and while represented by counsel, Rettig attempted to withdraw his guilty plea by submitting a

KATHRYN H. VRATIL, United States District Judge Laura Hawkins brings suit against the Board of County Commissioners of Coffey County, Christopher Phelan, Karen Maley and Brenda Cherry. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff asserts that in terminating her employment, the Board, Phelan and/or Maley violated her constitut

PER CURIAM. I. Introduction Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we have jurisdiction over appeals from “all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.”1 This appeal presents the question of whether a district court’s order determining the rights and liabilities of some, but not all, claimants with claims to receivership assets is a final decision under § 1291.