Cases

REAVLEY, Circuit Judge: The United States seeks False Claims Act1 penalties from the owners of an apartment project for falsely certifying that the property was decent, safe, and sanitary in requesting supplemental rent payments funded under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act.2 The district court granted summary judgment for the owners,3

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, PARKER, DENNIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service hav

400 F.3d 1001 Syed M.A. HASAN, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent, andSargent & Lundy, LLC, Intervening Respondent.Kenneth Harris, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Judy Smith, et al., Defendants-Appellees.Jacqueline D. Watson, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Scott Marquardt and Management & Training Corp., Defendants-Appellees. No. 04-3030. No. 04-315

DUGGAN, District Judge. In this employment discrimination case, Plaintiff-Appellant Paul Lundy (“Lundy”), represented by counsel before the district court, alleged under both Ohio Rev.Code § 4112.02, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., that Defendant-Appellee General Motors Corporation (“GM”) maintained a hostile work environment by allowing him to be harassed and discriminated

Rufe, J. Plaintiff Larry Pitt & Associates and Defendant Lundy Law LLP are Philadelphia-area law firms that advertise for personal injury, social security, and workers' compensation cases. After Lundy filed and then withdrew a trademark infringement lawsuit against Pitt, Pitt filed this suit against Lundy Law and its managing partner, L. Leonard Lundy (collectively, "Lundy"), asserting wrongful use of civil proceedings, false ad

MEMORANDUM OPINION RUFE, District Judge. Plaintiff Larry Pitt & Associates (“Pitt”), a law firm, has sued a second law firm, Lundy Law, LLP, and its managing partner L. Leonard Lundy, Esq. (collectively “Lundy Law”), as well as Titan Outdoor LLC (“Titan”), an advertising firm, alleging federal antitrust violations and state law causes of action. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its

Lundy Dev. & Prop. Mgt., LLC v Cor Real Prop. Co., LLC (2020 NY Slip Op 01751) Lundy Dev. & Prop. Mgt., LLC v Cor Real Prop. Co., LLC 2020 NY Slip Op 01751 Decided on March 13, 2020 Appellate Division, Fourth Department

260 S.W.3d 482 (2008) Sean LUNDY, Appellant, v. Marcos V. MASSON, M.D. and Global Orthopaedics, Inc., Appellees. No. 14-06-00581-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.). April 29, 2008. Rehearing Overruled July 10, 2008. *488 Timothy A. Hootman, Lance Christopher Kassab, Houston, for appellant.

* * * * * * * * * * * Upon review of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good grounds to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission, upon reconsideration of the evidence, modifies and affirms the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner. * * * * * * * * * * *

205 F.Supp.2d 390 (2002) John HAYMOND, Haymond Napoli Diamond, P.C. v. Marvin LUNDY, v. John Haymond, Robert Hochberg, Haymond Napoli Diamond, P.C. No. 99-5048. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. January 2, 2002. *391 *392 Martin Heller, Special Master, Philadelphia, PA,

JOHN F. FISCHER, Judge. 1 1 David L. Lundy, individually and d/b/a Dave Lundy Propane, appeals from a temporary injunction requiring Lundy to remove any propane tanks from Lineoln, Logan, Pottawatomie and Cleveland counties and to comply with the terms of a non-compete agreement and the terms of a confidentiality *551and non-solicitation agreement. After reviewing the

*********** The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Hoag and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the Opinion and Award. ***********

177 F.Supp.2d 371 (2001) John HAYMOND, Haymond Napoli Diamond, P.C.-CT, v. Marvin LUNDY. v. John Haymond, Robert Hochberg, Haymond, Napoli, Diamond, P.C.-CT. No. CIV. A. 99-5048. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. August 31, 2001. *372 Judah I. Labovitz, Deborah H. Bjornstad, Mann, Unger, and Specter, Philad

DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge: Plaintiffs, a respiratory therapist and two nurses, allege that the Catholic Health System of Long Island Inc., a collection of hospitals, healthcare providers, and related entities (collectively, “CHS”), failed to compensate them adequately for time worked during meal breaks, before and after scheduled shifts, and during required training sessions. T

498 F.Supp.2d 25 (2007) UNITED STATES ex rel. Debra HOCKETT, M.D., et al., Plaintiffs, v. COLUMBIA/HCA HEALTHCARE CORP., et al., Defendants. Misc. No. 01-50 (RCL), Civil Action No. 99-3311 (RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. July 17, 2007. *26 *27

ORDER AND REASONS KURT D. ENGELHARDT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Presently before the Court is “Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counts I, III, and IV of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint” (Rec. Doc. 19) filed by First Student Management LLC and First Student Management, Inc. (collectively “First Student”). Plaintiffs1 have opposed the motion

MEMORANDUM Stengel, District Judge This is an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Pennsylvania’s Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL) by the plaintiffs against First Student Management LLC and First Student Inc. (collectively “First Student”).1 First Student employed the plaintiffs as bus drivers and driver assistants, and the plaintiffs now seek to rec

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ANALISA TORRES, District Judge Plaintiff, Alexia Palmer, brings this putative class action against Defendants, Trump Model Management, LLC (“Trump”), Corinne Nicolas,1 President of Trump, and John or Jane Doe, CEO of Tramp, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 18‐3119 NEAL PRESTON, individually and on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff‐Appellant, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant‐Appellee. ________

OPINION Frederick, J. This case comes before the Court on Respondents motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. These two cases have been consolidated for trial purposes. The Court has carefully reviewed all of the pleadings in this case, and the Court has heard the oral arguments of counsel for all of the parties. The Facts