Cases

LOLLEY, J. | jThis appeal arises out of an insurance coverage dispute whereby four different defendants, Admiral Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Admiral”), Steadfast Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Steadfast”), ACE American Insurance (hereinafter referred to as “ACE”), and Oracle Oil, L.L.C. (hereinafter referred to as “Oracle”), appeal a single judgment granting Oracle’s motion for partial summar

ROVNER, Circuit Judge. At issue in this appeal is whether a franchisor may compel several of its franchisees to engage in nonbinding arbitration of diversity claims that the franchisees brought in federal court. The district court refused to stay the franchisees’ lawsuits and declined to compel arbitration. We affirm. I. Steak n

Per Curiam. Affirmed. May, Ciklin and Kuntz, JJ., concur.

Motion for Stay Pending Appeal; Factors to be Considered; Analysis of Likelihood of Success on the Merits; Irreparable Harm; Balance of Harms to Government; Effect on Public Interest. OPINION AND ORDER 1 WHEELER, Judge. Plaintiff, Algese 2 s.c.a.r.l. (“Agese”), requests a stay pend

Honorable Edmond E. Chang, United States District Judge *1088This case arises out of the unfortunate spoilage of over 53,000 pounds of frozen pork. The pork thawed in transit when its refrigeration temperature was improperly set to a spring-like temperature of +18° C (64° F) instead of -18° C (0° F). R. 39, Am. Compl.1 In its journey from

Post-award Bid Protest; Remand to Agency for Responsibility Determination Following Receipt of New Information; Offer- or’s Duty to Disclose Criminal Activity of Parent Corporation and Former Principals. THOMAS C. WHEELER, Judge OPINION AND ORDER 1 This bid protest is before

OPINION AND ORDER ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: Plaintiff, Linda Scott, individually and on behalf of her child, C.S., brings this action against the New York City Department of Education (the “DOE”) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the “IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Plaintiff seeks review of the January 5, 2012 decision (the “SRO Op.”) of New York Stat

KATHERINE B. FORREST, United States District Judge On August 22, 2015, Daniel Rivera ("Rivera" or "plaintiff") fell from a ladder during the course of his employment in Yonkers, New York. This action concerns whether and to what extent either of the contracting entities involved in Rivera's employment-Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. ("Home Depot") and Bryan's Home Improvement Corp. ("BHIC")-are liable for his resulting injuries.

Post-award Bid Protest; Offeror’s Failure to Inform Navy of Parent Corporation’s Corruption and Fraud in Multiple Government Procurements; Effect of Material Misrepresentations and False Certifications in Proposal; Permanent Injunctive Relief. OPINION AND ORDER 1 WHEELER, Judge.

(2) the employee making the communication did so at the direction of his or her corporate superior; (3) the superior made the request of the employee as part of the corporation's effort to secure legal advice or services; (4) the content of the communication relates to the legal services being rendered, and the subject matter of the communication is within the scope of the employ

JUDGMENT Per Curiam This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and oral arguments of the parties. The Court has afforded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the portion of the appea

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-23-00523-CV Appellant, C. S. S.// Cross-Appellant, A. S. v. Appellee, A. S.// Cross-Appellee, C. S. S. FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-FM-19-004143, THE HONORABLE MARIA CANTÚ HEXSEL, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION

BENCH TRIAL ORDER C. ASHLEY ROYAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE In this trademark infringement case, Plaintiff FN Herstal, S.A. (“FN”) and Defendant Clyde Armory, Inc. (“Clyde Armory”) both claim superior rights to use “SCAR” or “SCAR-Stock” in the firearms industry. The Court conducted a bench trial in this case on July 21-July 23, 2015, and, 'thereafter, directed the parties to, submit the

ORDER SARAH EVANS BARKER, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on two motions for Clarification and Reconsideration [Docket Nos. 234, 294] filed by Plaintiff Tecnomatic, S.P.A. (“Tecnomatic”) and a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Docket No. 290] filed by Defendants Remy Inc., Remy International, Inc., Del-co Remy Mexico, S.R.L. De C.V., and Remy Componentes S. De R.L. De C.V. (“Remy”). For th

DYK, Circuit Judge. Helsinn Healthcare S.A. (“Helsinn”) is the owner of the four patents-in-suit di *1360 rected to intravenous formulations of palo-nosetron for reducing or reducing the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (“CINV”). Helsinn brought suit

WOOD, Chief Judge. In First Bank v. DJL Properties, LLC, 598 F.3d 915 (7th Cir. 2010), we held that a counterclaim-defendant is not entitled to remove a case from state court to federal court under the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act-(CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b). Today’s case presents a related question: whether, even though the original countercla

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY, Chief Judge. bOn appeal, plaintiff-customer challenges the summary judgment, dismissing her action for damages against defendant-merchant for a slip-and-fall on defendant’s premises. For the following reasons, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History On November 27, 2009, Sylvia Scott, plaintiff-herein, entered the Dillard’s Department Store at Esplanade Ma

823 F.Supp.2d 699 (2011) Chyrianne H. JONES, Plaintiff, v. ST. JUDE MEDICAL S.C., INC., et al., Defendants. No. 2:08-CV-1047. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. September 29, 2011. *707 Judith E. Galeano, Mowery and Youell, Chelsea Lee Long, James Scott Mowery, Jr., Justin Anthony Morocco, Mowery, Youell <

RODNEY GILSTRAP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *893Before the Court is Defendants LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.'s (collectively, "LG" or "Defendants") Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, and for a New Trial, in the -912 Case (Invalidity) (No. 2:14-cv-911, Dkt. No. 616) ("the Motion"). Having consider

MEMORANDUM GREGORY M. SLEET, Chief Judge. I.INTRODUCTION In this correction of inventorship action, plaintiffs W. Norman Scott, M.D., (“Dr. Scott”) and Giles R. Scuderi, M.D., (“Dr. Scuderi” or collectively, “the plaintiffs”) seek to add themselves as inventors of U.S. Patent No. 6,123,729, U.S. Patent No. 6,402,786, and U.S. Patent No. 6,319,283 (“the patents”) presently assig