Cases

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 25-533 Filed: July 21, 2025 Re-issued: August 7, 20251 ________________________________________ ) STERLING MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, )

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 22-1402 _____________ MEDICAL ASSOCIATES OF ERIE v. MICHAEL B. ZAYCOSKY, D.O., Appellant _____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dist

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ADVANCED MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 22-499 (BAH) v. Judge Beryl A. Howell LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before this Court, for the s

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 5, 2023 Decided June 7, 2024 No. 23-5067 MEDICAL IMAGING & TECHNOLOGY ALLIANCE AND ADVANCED MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION, APPELLANTS v. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS AND CARLA HAYDEN, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, APPELLEES Appeal from the United

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GRAVITY DEFYER MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY CORP., et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 22-1157 (RDM) v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This is one of two cases pending before the Court regarding advertisements

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEDICAL IMAGING & TECHNOLOGY ALLIANCE, et al., Civil Action No. 22-499 (BAH) Plaintiffs, Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell v. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, et al. Defendants.

*1314 OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR., District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On February 27, 2012, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “Panel”) ordered the centralization-of five actions pending in five districts, involving alleged defects in Wright Medical Technology Inc.’s Conse

*1328OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the Court on Defendant Wright Medical Technology, Inc. ’s (“Defendant” or “Wright Medical”)1 Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or in the Alternative, Motion for-New Trial and to Amend the Judgment [241] (“Ren

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER E. RICHARD WEBBER, Senior District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on “Defendants Wright Medical Technology, Inc. and Wright Medical Group, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Counts I, VI, VII, and VIII of Plaintiffs Complaint” [ECF No. 5]. I. BACKGROUND On January 13, 2014, Plaintiff Lois Annette Anastasi, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 13

TRANSFER ORDER JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman. Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiff in a Southern District of Georgia action (James) moves for centralized pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of Georgia. Plaintiffs motion encompasses five actions pending in five districts, as listed on Schedules A and B. The cases in this litigation primaril

MEMORANDUM RE: RULE 11 Baylson, District Judge 1. Introduction At issue is whether the Court should order Rule 11 sanctions against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs counsel. In this case, Plaintiff requested Defendant perform surgery on his knee, but claimed that he could not afford to meet the requirements of Defendant’s financial policy, which mandated thfit customers pay any remaining in

■ED CARNES, Chief Judge: In 2013 Cin-Q Automobiles, Inc., filed a complaint on behalf of a putative class, alleging that Buccaneers Limited Partnership was responsible for unsolicited faxes that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227. The two sides litigated that case, which we will call the Cin-Q case, for three years, with Medic

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO JANE DOE I, JANE DOE II, AND JOHN DOE, BY AND THROUGH CONSERVATOR, FLEMING AND CURTI, PLC, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. LENZNER MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, AN ARIZONA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND DR. JOHN HERROD AND SHERRIE FARNSWORT

528 F.3d 28 (2008) Murali JASTY, M.D., Plaintiff, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC; Wright Medical Group, Inc., Defendants, Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Nos. 07-1743, 07-1744. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Heard March 4, 2008. Decided June 5, 2008. *30 James L. Beausolei

IN TI-[E SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ATLANTIC MEDICAL SPECIALISTS, LLC, a DelaWare Limited Liability Cornpany, Plaintiff, V. C.A. N0. N15C-06-245 CEB GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.A., MICHELE CAMPONELLI, THOMAS SPAHR, MARK CORSO, M.D., DAVID R. BESWICK, M.D., IRA F. LOBIS, M.D. and JOSEPH F. HACKER III, M.D., Defendants. \_/\_/\_/V\_/V\/\/\/\./\./\./\_/VV\_/V Submitted: February 13, 2017 Decided: April 20, 2017 MEMORANDUM OPINION Upon Defendants ’ Motz'ons for Summarjy Judgme

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORP. v. PAREDES2023 OK 42Case Number: 120197Decided: 04/18/2023THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Cite as: 2023 OK 42, __ P.3d __ NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Appellant Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (“Wright Medical”), a Tennessee corporation, appeals from the district court’s refusal to enforce the forum selection clause in an arbitration provision that was part of a distribution agreement (the “Agreement”) between Wright Medical and Ocean State Orthopedics, Inc. (“OSO”), a Rhode Island corporation. The distri

Appellate Case: 24-6002 Document: 75-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 7, 2025

OSCN Found Document:SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORP. v. PAREDES Previous Case Top Of Index This Point in Index Citationize Next Case Print Only

Opinion ARONSON, Acting P. J. Plaintiffs Jerry Jay Martin, Jerry Lloyd Martin, Tressa Brown, and Lisa Vindell (collectively the Martins) filed the underlying action against defendants and cross-complainants PacifiCare of California doing business as Secure Horizons and PacifiCare Health Systems, LLC (collectively PacifiCare). The Martins asserted claims for insurance bad faith based on delays their wife and m