Cases

Martinez v Kaz USA, Inc. (2020 NY Slip Op 02775) Martinez v Kaz USA, Inc. 2020 NY Slip Op 02775 Decided on May 13, 2020 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to

Martinez v Kaz USA, Inc. (2020 NY Slip Op 02776) Martinez v Kaz USA, Inc. 2020 NY Slip Op 02776 Decided on May 13, 2020 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to

Martinez v Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc. (2020 NY Slip Op 06114) Martinez v Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc. 2020 NY Slip Op 06114 Decided on October 28, 2020 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New Yo

App.dism.

OPINION SIMANDLE, Chief Judge: I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Charlene Martinez brings this putative class action against Defendants TD Bank USA, N.A. (“TD Bank”) and Target Corporation (“Target”), alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227; the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788-1788.33; and California

USA v. Martinez CR-96-086-M 12/17/96 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Criminal No. 96-86-1-M Carlos Martinez, Defendant. O R D E R The defendant is indigent and apparently homeless. He has been detained pending trial in the custody of the Attorney General of the United Stat

*1176 ORDER RE: CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MOTIONS TO STRIKE GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR., District Judge. Columbia Sportswear USA Corp. (“Columbia”) and Eddie Bauer LLC (“Eddie Bauer”) each seek summary judgment on the claims in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF Nos. 125, 126.) Plaintiff opposes each motion and also

MEMORANDUM ** Tony Martinez, a paraplegic who requires a wheelchair for mobility, appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Home Depot USA, Inc., in his action under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related state disability access laws. We have ju*729risdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse

Case below, 517 Fed.Appx. 634.Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Former decision, 134 S.Ct. 1005.Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Former decision, 134 S.Ct. 473Petition for rehearing denied.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Former decision, 134 S.Ct. 305.Petition for rehearing denied.

FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT MARCH 24, 2021 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit