Cases

OPINION AND ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, United States District Judge On December 23, 2014, the Plaintiff, Robert Zani, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, filed an Amended Complaint against Rite Aid Headquarters Corporation for negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, in connection with a prerecorded, automated call the Defenda

*50 SELYA, Circuit Judge. There are no role models in the tale that we chronicle here. The story line pits a sophisticated developer against a sophisticated tenant. The parties had done business for many years and (at least in the developer’s view) had established a template for future transactions. Their cu

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Brian F. DeJoseph, J.), entered October 29, 2012. The order and judgment, among other things, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. It is hereby ordered that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated at Supreme Court. Present — Smith, J.P, Peradotto, Lindley, Valentino and Whalen, JJ. <

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Brian F. DeJoseph, J.), entered October 29, 2012. The order and judgment, among other things, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. It is hereby ordered that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated at Supreme Court. Present — Smith, J.P, Peradotto, Lindley, Valentino and Whalen, JJ. <

In an action to recover damages for breach of a lease, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated *485August 28, 2000, which denied its motion for partial summary judgment. Ordered that upon searching the record, the order is modified by adding a provision thereto granting partial summary judgment to the defendant dismissing so much

269 F.Supp.2d 603 (2003) In re RITE AID CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION. No. MDL DOCKET NO. 1360. Master File No. 99-1349. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. June 2, 2003. *604 Douglas B. Adler, Skadden Arps Slate Manager & Flom, Los Angles, C.A, David J. Anderson, Bruce A.Hiler, Jeffery W. Kilduff, William J. Stuckwi

Smoot v Rite Aid (2020 NY Slip Op 03723) Smoot v Rite Aid 2020 NY Slip Op 03723 Decided on July 2, 2020 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 4

Filed 4/30/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN MARIA MARTINEZ, B292672 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC401746) v. RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark V.

JON O. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge: This appeal and cross-appeal concern a pharmacist who suffers from trypanopho-bia — fear of needles. The pharmacy where he was employed discharged him because he could not comply with a company policy that required pharmacists to administer immunization injections to customers. That action precipitated

Haissaun Mitchell, et al. v. Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc., et al. No. 21, Sept. Term 2022 Opinion by Leahy, J. Tort Law > Workers’ Compensation Immunity > LE § 9-509 Under Section 9-509 of the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act which is codified in Title 9 of the Maryland Code (1991, 2016 Repl. Vol., 2021 Supp.), Labor & Employment Article (“LE”), the liability of an employer for injuries to an employee while on the job is exclusive to a claim in workers’ compensation. Section 9-509 “vindicates

Haissaun Mitchell et al. v. Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc., et al. No. 21, Sept. Term 2022 Opinion by Leahy, J. Tort Law > Workers’ Compensation Immunity > LE § 9-509 Under Section 9-509 of the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act which is codified in Title 9 of the Maryland Code (1991, 2016 Repl. Vol., 2021 Supp.), Labor & Employment Article (“LE”), the liability of an employer for injuries to an employee while on the job is exclusive to a claim in workers’ compensation. Section 9-509 “vindicates a

Haissaun Mitchell et al. v. Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc., et al. No. 21, Sept. Term 2022 Opinion by Leahy, J. Tort Law > Workers’ Compensation Immunity > LE § 9-509 Under Section 9-509 of the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act which is codified in Title 9 of the Maryland Code (1991, 2016 Repl. Vol., 2021 Supp.), Labor & Employment Article (“LE”), the liability of an employer for injuries to an employee while on the job is exclusive to a claim in workers’ compensation. Section 9-509 “vindicates a

March 8, 2022 Supreme Court No. 2020-246-Appeal. (PC 18-1230) Maria C. Rosa : v. : PJC of Rhode Island, Inc. formerly : Rite Aid of Rhode Island, Inc. a/k/a Rite Aid Pharmacy a/k/a/ Rite Aid Corporation, et al.

Miano v Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp. (2018 NY Slip Op 02453) Miano v Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp. 2018 NY Slip Op 02453 Decided on April 11, 2018 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Burea

OPINION BY SHOGAN, J.: David M. Landay and the law firm of Patberg Carmody & Ging (collectively “Appellants”) appeal from the order entered on May 5, 2011 in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas that granted the preliminary objections filed by the appellee, Rite Aid, and dismissed Appellants’ complaint. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. On Ma

Schindler, J. ¶1 Marcia R. Magee appeals from a 2010 decision and order of the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (Board) and the order denying her motion to vacate. The Board ruled that even if it erroneously exceeded the scope of review in previously deciding that Magee’s claim did not constitute an occupational disease, because Magee did not challenge that determination in her appeal of the 2006 “Decision and Order,” that de

146 F.Supp.2d 706 (2001) IN RE RITE AID CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document Relates to All Actions Laborers Local 1298 Annuity Fund, derivatively and on behalf of Rite Aid Corporation, v. Alex Grass, et al. No. MDL 1360. Nos. 99-CV-1349, CIV.A. 99-2493. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. June 8, 2001.

MEMORANDUM OPINION WILLIAM D. QUARLES, JR., District Judge. Jeraline Taylor sued Rite Aid Corporation (the “Corporation”) and Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc. (“Rite Aid”), (together the “defendants”), for employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”),1 the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (“ADA”),2</

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ENVOLVE PHARMACY SOLUTIONS, ) INC., ET AL., ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N19C-12-214 ) PRW CCLD ) RITE AID HDQTRS. CORP., ) and RITE AID CORP., ) Defendants. )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE § COMPANY, ILLINOIS UNION § INSURANCE COMPANY, ACE § PROPERTY & CASUALTY § COMPANY, and FEDERAL § INSURANCE COMPANY § No. 339, 2020 § Defendants Below, § Court Below: Superior Court Appellants, § of the State of Delaware § v. § C.A. No. N19C-0