Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge. *963TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................963 A. Factual

768 F.Supp.2d 961 (2011) In re IOWA READY-MIX CONCRETE ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Randy Waterman, Frank Audino Construction, Inc., Sioux City Engineering Co., City of Le Mars, Iowa, and Sioux Contractors, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. GCC Alliance Concrete, Inc., Siouxland Concrete Company, VS Holding Company, f/k/a Alliance Concrete, Inc., Great Lakes Concrete, Inc., Steven Keith VandeBrake, Kent

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) ) GOOGLE LLC,

679 F.3d 1030 (2012) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Steven Keith VANDEBRAKE, also known as Steve Keith VandeBrake, Appellant. No. 11-1390. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: November 17, 2011. Filed: April 27, 2012. *1031 Mark E. Weinhardt, argued, Des Moines, IA, William B. Ortman

771 F.Supp.2d 961 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Steven Keith VANDEBRAKE, Defendant. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Kent Robert Stewart, Defendant. Nos. CR10-4025-MWB, CR10-4028-MWB. United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division. February 8, 2011. *964 Andre M. Geverola, Laura Heid

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE MOENS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ENJOIN THE STATE COURT PROCEEDING FILED BY THE ESTATE OF GERALD RALPH BOGE MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge. *681TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................................681 A. Factual Backgrou

ORDER PHILIP A. BRIMMER, United States s District Judge This matter is before the Court on Defendant Green Tree’s Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint [Docket No. 9]. This case arises out of plaintiff Shannon Clark’s efforts to modify her mortgage loan through her servicer, defendant Green Tree Servicing LLC (“Green Tree”). The Court’s jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HUBEL, United States Magistrate Judge: The plaintiff Tami Wiederhold filed this employment action on August 17, 2011, against her former employer, the defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co. (“Sears”). Wiederhold claims that after she developed a physical impairment, Sears refused to accommodate her in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 4

705 F.Supp.2d 1220 (2010) Alan C. IVAR, an individual, Deborah L. Ivar, an individual, and Clifford A. Bernstein, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. ELK RIVER PARTNERS, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, DMB Realty LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, d/b/a Marabou Realty, Jeffrey Temple, an individual, John Hillenbrand, an individual, M & I Marshall and Ilsley Bank, a Wisconsin Corporation, and Does 1-100, Defendants. <

SIPA LIQUIDATION MEMORANDUM DECISION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS STUART M. BERNSTEIN, United States Bankruptcy Judge: Irving H. Picard, trustee (the “Trustee”) for the liquidation of the estate of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“BLMIS”), commenced this adversary proceeding to avoid and recover fraudulent transfers and disallow and/o

637 F.Supp.2d 1002 (2007) Elias (Lou) ABUSAID, Jr., Plaintiff, v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; Hillsborough County Fire Marshal's Office; Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County; Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, Defendants. Case No. 8:03-cv-904-T-23TBM. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. September 6, 2007.

ORDER THOMAS B. McCOUN III, United States Magistrate Judge. THIS MATTER is before the court1 on Defendant Hillsborough County Board *1007of County Commissioners, Hillsborough County Fire Marshal’s Office and Board of County Commissioners’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 66) (Rul

OAKES, Circuit Judge: In this case — one involving a questionable grant of a motion to dismiss — the district court imposed Rule 11 sanctions on the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney apparently for failure to make “reasonable inquiry” into the action’s jurisdictional basis before filing the complaint. Purporting to follow Eastway Construction Corp. v. City of New York, 762 F.2d 243 (2d Cir.1985), the district

OPINION HIGGINBOTHAM, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION The instant matter involves a series of motions and petitions filed by the parties to this civil rights action, wherein those parties seek to modify or supplement a Consent Decree approved by this Court on January 18, 1973. The intervening defendants (hereinafter “Intervenors”) — the Communications Workers of A

419 F.Supp. 1022 (1976) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION et al. v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY et al. Civ. A. No. 73-149. United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. August 23, 1976. As Amended September 15, 1976. *1023 *1024