Cases

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) DEEL, INC., a Delaware corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) C.A. NO. N25C-04-239 DJB PEOPLE CENTER, INC., D/B/A ) RIPPLING, a Delaware corporation; and ) DOES

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE Re: Dkt. Nos. 78, 79, 81, 86, 87 WILLIAM H. ORRICK, United States District Judge Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint alleges that defendants created a complex criminal enterprise involving fake companies, fake identifications, and large-scale illegal taping of reproductive health care conferences and private meetings in order to advance their goal

OPINION FOR PUBLICATION John Michael Vazquez, United States District Judge. '■ This matter comes before the Court on Defendant ATG Electronics, Incorporated’s (“ATG”) supplemental motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer.1 This case con*376cerns allegations that ATG improperly i

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERT E. PAYNE, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION AS TO WHICH THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE HAS BEEN WAIVED AND FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING (Docket No. 869) filed by ePlus Inc. (“ePlus”). For the reasons below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. PROCEDURAL B

*13 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Amit P. Mehta, United States District Judge This case presents an issue that appears with increasing frequency in the federal courts: Under what circumstances can a journalist be compelled to testify in a civil case about his or her First Amendment-protected activities? The present dispute arises out of a shareh

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION LUCY H. KOH, District Judge Before the Court is Plaintiff Adrienne Moore’s motion for class certification. ECF No. 57. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs motion for class certification. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Allegations

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL (DKT. 54) Present: The Honorable JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. Introduction Raymond Alfred and Marvin Banish (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought this putative class action in the Los Angeles Superior Court against Pepperidge Farm, Inc. (“PF” or “Defendant”)

ORDER VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge: Plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class in order to pursue his claim that Sterling Infosystems, Inc. (“Sterling”) willfully violates the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and its New York analogue when it reports criminal records obtained from the New York Office of Court Administration *407

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS, AND ENHANCEMENT AWARDS SUSAN ILLSTON, United States District Judge This minimum wage class action proceeded to trial and resulted in a $60.8 million common fund. Plaintiffs now move for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs and incentive awards for the named plaintiffs. They seek $20,26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT JEFFREY HANSEN DECLARATION; OVERRULING DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS MICHAEL M. ANELLO, District Judge. Plaintiffs Linda Blair, Diane Deal, and Shannon Collins (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this putative class action against Defendant The CBE Group, Incorpo

PROCEEDINGS: IN CHAMBERS-RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF ORDER ENTERED JULY 26, 2016 DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [37] GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Defendants’ Request for Publication of the Ruling on their Motion to Dismiss (see Docket No. 37) is granted. Attached hereto is the final ruling which has been amended to correct certain typographical errors.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 124— Granted Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., United States District Judge I. Introduction This ease involves a trademark and false advertising dispute. The Plaintiff, Parks, LLC, claims to be the owner of the trademark “Parks” that is used to sell sausages and other food products. Defenda

ORDER ROBERT C. BROOMFIELD, Senior District Judge. Introduction More than a decade ago, current and former Hispanic1 employees of defendant Ba-shas’, Inc. filed this action alleging race and national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as amended (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., for both

TRIAL ORDER Paul G. Hyman, Jr., Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge THIS MATTER came before the Court for trial (the “Trial”) on May 16 and 17, 2016, and June 15, 22, 23, 24, and 27, 2016, upon (1) the Second Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”) (EOF No. 61) and the *396Motion to Enforce Sale Order and to Hold The Best One, Inc. in Con

*529ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ELLISON MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING ESCALANTE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge. Plaintiffs in this labor case, current and former employees of Defendant AutoZone Inc., have filed two separate motions to certify five separate subclasses. See Ellison Mot

Illinois Official Reports Supreme Court Harris v. One Hope United, Inc., 2015 IL 117200 Caption in Supreme ROBERT F. HARRIS, Appellee, v. ONE HOPE UNITED, INC., Court: et al., Appellants. Docket No. 117200 Filed March 19, 2015 Decision Under Appeal from the Appellate Court for the First District; heard in that Review court on appeal f

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GEORGE B. DANIELS, District Judge: Before the Court is the motion for class certification of common issues of Representative Plaintiffs Michael S. Johnson, Donna Dymkowski, Patricia Long-Correa, Antonio Samuel, and Angelette Waters. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Leeds, Morelli & Brown, P.C. (“LMB”) committed, and Defendant Nextel Communications, Inc. (“Nextel”)

ORDER RICHARD A. JONES, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the court on a slew of motions following an eight-day jury trial. Both Plaintiff Michael Conti and Defendants Jay Leon and Corporate Services Group, Inc. (“CSG”) have requested oral argument on at least one of those motions, but the court finds oral argument unnecessary in light of the parties’ extensive b

MEMORANDUM OPINION ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, District Judge. Eight named plaintiffs, 1 on behalf of a class of 10.9 million consumers, sued defendants LivingSocial, Inc. (“LivingSocial”) and Jack’s Canoes and Kayaks, LLC, d/b/a Jack’s Boathouse (“Jack’s Boathouse”) (collectively, “defendant

*661MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge. Plaintiff Mary Hollman, as the Administrator of the Estate of Samuel A. Cox, and the Estate of Samuel A. Cox (collectively, “plaintiff’) brings this action against TASER International Incorporated (“TASER” or “defendant”), alleging that an Electronic Control Device (“ECD”) manufactured by TASER