Cases

M. Elaine Hammond, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge On March 27, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum vacating this court's judgment and remanding for further findings (Dkt. #234). Following entry of the Order Vacating Judgment (Dkt. #235) this court conducted a bifurcated trial on whether the parties' lease agreements are void under principles of California law and the appropriate judgment amount. As set forth in the Supplement to De

Duarte, J. *134Plaintiffs are class representatives of current and former employees of defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company who install and repair video and internet services in customers' homes. They appeal a judgment in favor of defendant following cross-motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication. Plaintiffs sought compensation

WILLIAM M. CONLEY, District Judge Plaintiff Mark Mlsna claims that defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act in declining to recertify him as a train conductor because of his hearing impairment. Defendant has moved for summary judgment (dkt. #50), arguing generally that Mlsna was not a "qualified individual" because he could not simultaneously meet Federal Railroad Administration hearing a

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MARVIN E. ASPEN, District Judge: I. INTRODUCTION Personal PAC, a non-for profit, pro-choice political action committee (“PAC”), brought this suit against members of the Illinois State Board of Elections to stop enforcement of portions of the Illinois Election Code, 10 ILCS 5/9 — 8.5(d) and 10 ILCS 5/9-2(d). As written, § 5/9-8.5(d) limits the

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Gerald Bruce Lee, United States District Judge THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs STOP Hillary PAC’s and Dan Backer’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 3). Plaintiffs’ have launched a facial constitutional challenge to Federal Election Commission regulation 52 U.S.C. § 30102(e)(4), contending that it restricts Plaintiffs’ free speech, in violation of t

ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL Appellants brought suit on August 5, 2010 asserting facial and as applied challenges to the constitutionality of provisions of Maine’s elections laws that set independent expenditure reporting requirements, 21-A M.R.S. § 1019-B, limit contributions to candidates for governor to $750 per election, 21-A M.R.S. § 1015(1), and provide, under some conditions, matching public funds

ORDER AFFIRMING THE DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF We affirm the denial of preliminary injunctive relief for essentially the reasons alluded to in our order of October 5, 2010 denying an injunction pending appeal. We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief. Puerto Rico Hosp. Supply, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 426 F.3d 503, 505 (1st Cir.2

ORDER KRISTI K. DuBOSE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. 29, 35-37), certain Defendants1 Altair Maritime Pte Ltd., PACCShip UK Ltd and PACC Container Line Pte Ltd.’s Response (Doc. 45, 47, 48), Plaintiffs Reply (Doc, 50, 51) and Defendants’ Sur-Reply (Doc. 55); and Defendants’ motion for leave

JON P. McCALLA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The cause is before the Court on Plaintiff Louisiana-Pacific Corporation ("LP")'s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed on June 11, 2018. (ECF No. 10.) The Court has considered the motion, Defendant James Hardie Building Products, Inc. ("JH")'s response (ECF No. 95), and LP's reply (ECF No. 134). The Court held a hearing on the motion on July 30-31 and August 13, 2018. For the reasons

MEMORANDUM DECISION M. Elaine Hammond, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kyle Everett, Chapter 11 trustee (“Plaintiff’) of the bankruptcy estate of Pacific Thomas Corporation (“PTC” or “Debtor”) brought this adversaiy proceeding to recover prepetition and postpetition transfers from Debtor’s estate, either directly or by Pacific Trading Ventares (“PTV”) to Thomas Capital Investments (“Defendant”).

OPINION OF THE COURT [564 U.S. 727] Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. Under Arizona law, candidates for state office who accept public financing can receive additional money from the State [564 U.S. 728] in direct response to the campaign activities of privately financed candidates and independent expend

CRAHAN, Judge. Pac-One, Inc., (“Taxpayer”) appeals the judgment dismissing its petition in mandamus seeking to compel the License Collector of the City of St. Louis (“Collector”) to recover and impound taxes paid under protest pursuant to section 139.031 RSMo Cum.Supp.1999.1 We affirm. The relevant facts are not in dispute. Taxpayer is a manufacturer located in the City of St.

*727Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. Under Arizona law, candidates for state office who accept public financing can receive additional money from the State *728in direct response to the campaign activities of privately financed candidates and independent expenditure groups

448 B.R. 321 (2011) In re ADVANCED MARKETING SERVICES, INC., et al., Debtor. Curtis R. Smith, Plan Administrator of Advanced Marketing Services, Inc., Plaintiff, v. PAC International Logistics Company, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 06-11480 (CSS). Adversary No. 08-51896 (CSS). United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware. April 5, 2011.

Dwyer, J. *1216¶1 Pacific County Public Utility District No. 2 (District) permitted Comcast of Washington IV, Inc., CenturyTel of Washington, Inc., and Falcon Community Ventures I, L.P., d/b/a Charter Communications (collectively Companies) to attach their communications equipment to the District's utility poles pursuant to written agreement

Justice LaVECCHIA delivered the opinion of the Court. Plaintiffs, landowners Thomas and Carol Griepenburg, challenge the validity of a series of ordinances enacted by defendant, Township of Ocean (the Township). The ordinances rezoned a large tract of land, including most of plaintiffs’ property, from residential and commercial use to an Environmental Conserv

Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. The principal issues in this case are whether Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976) (per curiam), is authority for state limits on contributions to state political candidates and *382whether the federal limits approved in Buckley, with or without adjustment for inflatio

J^KUHN, J. Plaintiffs, Forum for Equality PAC, a registered Louisiana political action committee, Laurence E. Best, Jeanne M. Le-Blanc, and William A. Schultz, filed suit in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge,1 against defendants, the City of New Orleans and W. Fox McKeithen, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Louisiana. Plaintiffs’ suit seeks to prevent

MEMORANDUM DECISION M. Elaine Hammond, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kyle Everett, Chapter 11 trustee (“Plaintiff’) of the bankruptcy estate, of Darrow Family Partners (“PTC” or “Debt- or”) brought this adversary proceeding to recover prepetition and postpetition transfers from Debtor’s estate, either directly or by Pacific Trading Ventures (“PTV”) to Darrow Family Partners (“Defendant”).

1 ,PER CURIAM. On August 18, 2004, the Supreme Court of Louisiana transferred the appeal of the Honorable W. Fox McKeithen (“McKeithen”), in his capacity as Louisiana’s Secretary of State, to this court for consideration of a judgment of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans preliminarily enjoining the state from placing a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot for 18 September 2004. The Supreme Court