Cases

465 F.Supp.2d 1039 (2006) Vincent and Gaytonne LOUGHNEY, Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. No. 06cvl020-LAB (RBB). United States District Court, S.D. California. October 31, 2006. *1041 Patrick E. Catalano, Law Offices of Patrick E. Catalano, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiffs.

420 F.Supp.2d 1093 (2006) INHERENT.COM aka Inherent, Plaintiff, v. MARTINDALE-HUBBELL, Lexis/Nexis Inc. and Does 1 through 200, inclusive, Defendants. No. C 05-3515 MHP. United States District Court, N.D. California. March 10, 2006. *1094 Patrick Earl Catalano, Law Offices of Patrick E. Catalano, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION Defendants David Pirk ("Pirk"), Andre Jenkins ("Jenkins"), and Timothy Enix ("Enix") (collectively, "Defendants") are named in a 46-count Second Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 33) ("Indictment") returned on March 16, 2016, alleging various crimes, including a conspiracy in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organiz

OPINION OF THE COURT Joseph J asp an, J. The standard characterized as that of "Justice” is also described as the "equitable, the fair, the theory consistent *437with good conscience” (Cordozo, Paradoxes of Legal Science, p 39). In People v Jones (39 NY2d 694, 701), Chief Judge Breitel, in a dissenting opinion, wrote tha

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge BACKGROUND The above-captioned matter involves 12 remaining defendants1 (collectively, "Defendants") named in a 46-count Second Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 33) ("Indictment") returned on March 16, 2016, alleging various crimes, including a conspiracy in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organiza

DECISION AND ORDER ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION The above-captioned matter involves 12 remaining defendants named m a 46-count Second Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 33) returned on March 16, 2016, alleging various crimes, including a conspiracy in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. (“RICO”

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge *589INTRODUCTION The above-captioned matter involves 12 remaining defendants1 named in a 46-count Second Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 33) ("Indictment") returned on March 16, 2016, alleging various crimes, including a conspiracy in violati

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge Presently before the Court is the motion of defendant Thomas Scanlon ("Scanlon") seeking a bill of particulars with respect to Counts 27 and 28. (Dkt. 385). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Scanlon's motion for a bill of particulars. BACKGROUND Scanlon and 11 remaining co-defendants1

DECISION AND ORDER ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge 1. BACKGROUND Defendant Stanley Olejniczak (“Defendant” or “Olejniczak”) seeks revocation of the magistrate judge’s detention order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). (Dkt. 574). Defendant is one of 16 defendants’1 named in a 46-count Second Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 33) (“Indictment”) re

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION The above-captioned matter involves eight remaining defendants1 (collectively, "Defendants") named in a 46-count Second Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 33) ("Indictment") returned on March 16, 2016, alleging various crimes, including a conspiracy in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Org

DECISION AND ORDER ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge BACKGROUND Defendant Andre Jenkins‘(“Jenkins”) is one of 12 remaining defendants1 named in a 46-count Second Superseding Indictment (“Indictment”) ■ (Dkt. 33) returned on March 16, 2016, alleging various crimes, including a conspiracy in violati

DECISION AND ORDER ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION Defendant Andre Jenkins (“Jenkins”) is one of 12 remaining defendants1 named in a 46-count Second Superseding Indictment (Dirt. 33) (“Indictment”) returned on March 16, 2016, alleging various crimes, including a conspiracy in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

DECISION AND ORDER ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge BACKGROUND, The above-captioned matter involves 12 remaining defendants1 named in a 46-count Second Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 33) (“Indictment”) returned on March 16, 2016, alleging various crimes, including a conspiracy in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization

MELLOY, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (the “Tribe”) appeals from two orders and a final judgment in a fraud- and-embezzlement-related RICO suit against former tribal officials, several attorneys, a law firm, and investment firm Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“Morgan Stanley”). In a first order, the district court granted Morgan Stanley’s motio

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY K. MICHAEL MOORE, Chief Judge. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and its lawyers, Bernardo Roman, III, Esq., Yinet Pino, Esq., and Yesenia Lara, Esq.’s (the “Movants”) Motion to Disqualify the Honorable Judge Marcia G. Cooke. (ECF No. 408). This Motion was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144. (

Herman Weinkrantz, M. The defendant is charged with being a vagrant, in violation of the provisions of section 887 (subd. 4, cl. [c]) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the State of New York. The testimony establishes that the defendant, in his office, known as the Lane Employment Agency, located at 115 West *34342nd Street, in the Borough of Manhattan,

OPINION IRENAS, Senior District Judge: This suit is a proposed class action challenging the Gloucester County Department of Corrections’ policies and practices regarding the delousing and supervised showers of newly admitted pretrial detainees. Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify the Class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), or alternatively, 23(b)(2).1

9 N.Y.3d 129 (2007) 878 N.E.2d 969 848 N.Y.S.2d 554 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN TAYLOR, Appellant. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. Argued September 10, 2007. Decided October 23, 2007. *130 Kevin M. Doyle, Capital Defender, New York City

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ________________________ No. 07-13-00134-CR No. 07-13-00135-CR ________________________ WILLIAM PERRY MCALLISTER III, APPELLANT

2023 IL App (4th) 220399 FILED NO. 4-22-0399 April 10, 2023 Carla Bender 4th District Appellate IN THE APPELLATE COURT