alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUZ HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF NAPA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-09-02782 EDL

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED

MOTION FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW

OF LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS

Plaintiff has subpoenaed the personnel records of former peace officer Donald Green from

his employer Napa State Hospital, which is administered by the California Department of Mental

Health (“DMH”). DMH has filed this motion requesting in camera review of the subpoenaed law

enforcement personnel records and the issuance of a protective order if information and/or

documents are disclosed. DMH argues that the production would impose an undue burden and

expense on DMH and would require the production of privileged or other protected matter. DMH

seeks an in camera review of the materiality and relevance of the information and documents

contained in such records, and requests that the Court modify the subpoena to allow it to submit

responsive personnel records under seal for an in camera review by the Court rather than directly to

the issuing attorney. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. According to DMH’s unopposed motion,

Plaintiff has agreed to limit the scope of the subpoena to the DMH’s Internal Affairs investigation of

the April 1, 2008 incident and the citizen’s complaint submitted to DMH against Mr. Green as a

result of the incident. 

Case 3:09-cv-02782-EDL Document 88 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3)(A), the Court “must” quash or modify a

subpoena that requires the disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, or subjects a person to

undue burden. DMH argues that the privacy interest in police records such as those in question must

be balanced against the interests of the party seeking discovery to determine if a right to privacy

exists. 

The Court finds good cause for granting DMH’s Motion without the need for oral argument,

and hereby Orders DMH to lodge the responsive documents directly with this Court (i.e, by hand

delivery) by no later than Monday, June 21, 2010 so that the Court may conduct an in camera

review. Following the Court’s review, it will determine which, if any, of the documents should be

produced and rule on DMH’s request for a protective order at that time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2010 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02782-EDL Document 88 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 2
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2009\2596\Judgment.wpd

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELAINE-BARBARA NEISWENDER,

Plaintiff,

    v.

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, et al.,Defendants.

                                                                      /

No. C 09-2596 CRB

JUDGMENT

The Court, having dismissed Plaintiff’s action with prejudice, enters judgment in

favor of Defendants against Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2010                                                            CHARLES  R. BREYERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02596-CRB   Document 33   Filed 06/22/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T05:11:34-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, David Goronkin, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Famous Dave’s of America,Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designated under our system, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this quarterly report basedon such evaluation; and  c)  disclosed in this quarterly report any changes in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’sfirst quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent function):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Dated: May 13, 2005 By:  /s/ David Goronkin    David Goronkin    President and Chief Executive Officer
CONTAINS NO CSI . 

(am. 

November 3, 2010 

p. 1 

33 boo c~lJl 6 l Zd4-0/1,3 

Director, Chemical Control Division (7405M) 

Room 4146 EPA East 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

202-564-4760 

Attn : 

Re: 

DuPont Corporate Remediation Group 

Chestnut Run Plaza, Building 715 

4417 Lancaster Pike 

Wilmington, DE 19805 

Document Control Office 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

EPA East, Room 6428 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

202-564-8930 

EPA Docket ID Number OPPT-2004-0113 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S . Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) for a 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Site-Related Environmental Assessment Program 

(November 3, 2005) 

Quarterly MOU Status Report #20, Phase 11 Monitoring/Sampling 

Work Plan, DuPont Washington Works (November 3, 2010) 

Dear Sir/Madam : 

This Quarterly MOU Status Report #20 is submitted in accordance with Section V.B.3 of the 

above-identified MOU. All Phase II Work Plan related activities have been completed and the 

Assessments, required under Section V. D ., have been submitted to EPA. In addition, the Peer 

Consultation Process (PCP) required under Section V.E.2 of the MOU is currently underway. 

Data reported in this quarterly MOU status report were received by DuPont as of October 15, 

2010, are not part of the Phase 11 MOU monitoring activities, but provided by DuPont for 

completeness of study. An index of this status report is provided as an Attachment to this letter . 

If you need any additional information or further clarification, please contact me (302-999-6197) 

or Jenny Liu (302-999-3628). 

Very truly yours, 

C.VZA4ftAndrew S. Hartten 

Project Director 

Attachment: 

Enclosures : 

r., 

' 

---- rri 

.; 

E 

Index of report documents (1 page) _`-~ 

1 paper copy of the Quarterly MOU Status Report #20 - November 3, 2010 

1 digital copy of the Quarterly MOU Status Report #20 - November 3, 2010 

E.I . du Pont de Nemours and Company 
Docket No. OPPT-2004-0113 November 3, 2010 

EPA-DuPont MOU 

Index 

Final Analytical Sampling Results - Ouarterly_MOU Status Report #20 

Document/Report Title-Paper Copy No. of Pazes* 

1 paper copy of the Quarterly MOU Status Report #20, 188 pages 

Phase 11 Monitoring/Sampling Work Plan, DuPont 

Washington Works (OPPT-2004-0113 PFOA Site-Related 

Environmental Assessment Program) 

Document/Report Title-Electronic Copy No. of Pazes 

CD 1 of 1 containing the Quarterly MOU Status Report #20, 186 pages 

Phase 11 Monitoring/Sampling Work Plan, DuPont 

Washington Works (OPPT-2004-0113 PFOA Site-Related 

Environmental Assessment Program) as one PDF file titled, 

Quarterly MOU Status Report #20 110310.PDF 

Page count does not include blank pages caused by double-sided printing of the tables . 

Page 2 of 2 OPPT-2004-0113 PFOA Site-Related Environmental Assessment Program
EXHIBIT
31.1
 SECTION
302 CERTIFICATION
 
 I,
Michael S. Wasik, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10−KSB of RoomLinX, Inc.;
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
report.
 
 4. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a−15(e) and 15d−15(e) for the small business issuer and
have:
 
 (a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;
 
 b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 (c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small
business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 
 (a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and
 
 (b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date:
              7/1/08By:
              /s/ Michael S.
      WasikMichael
      S. WasikChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
### §59. Survival of right of action of person injured

Any right of action given by this chapter to a person suffering injury shall survive to his or her personal representative, for the benefit of the surviving widow or husband and children of such employee, and, if none, then of such employee's parents; and, if none, then of the next of kin dependent upon such employee, but in such cases there shall be only one recovery for the same injury.

(Apr. 22, 1908, ch. 149, §9, as added Apr. 5, 1910, ch. 143, §2, 36 Stat. 291.)
§ 232.590 Eligibility of property. ( a ) A loan to be eligible for insurance shall be on real estate held: ( 1 ) In fee simple; or
( 2 ) On the interest of the lessee under a lease for not less than ninety-nine years which is renewable; or
( 3 ) Under a lease having a period of not less than “twenty-five” years to run from the date the loan is executed.
( b ) The property constituting security for the loan transaction must be held by an eligible borrower as herein defined and must at the time the loan is insured be free and clear of all liens other than those specifically approved by the Commissioner.
[39 FR 28966, Aug. 12, 1974; 39 FR 30349, Aug. 22, 1974]
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMON MIKIANGELO BERRY,III,

Plaintiff,

    v.

R. METCALFE,

Defendant._______________________________                                

)))))))))) )

No. C 09-2027 MMC (PR)  

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OFTIME TO FILE REPLY

(Docket No. 39)

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, defendant’s request for an extension of time to file a

reply to plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby

GRANTED.  Defendant shall file a reply no later than September 10, 2010.  The summary

judgment motion will be deemed submitted on the date the reply is due.

This order terminates Docket No. 29.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 25, 2010

_____________________________MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02027-MMC   Document 42   Filed 08/25/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T20:59:49-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT GREYGRASS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-02610 JSW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a motion for summary judgment in accordance with

Northern District Civil Local Rule 16-5 and the Social Security Procedural Order filed in this

action, on January 4, 2010, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to show

cause as to why this matter should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

Plaintiff’s response was due by January 25, 2010, and the Court advised Plaintiff that failure to

respond to the Order to Show Cause, would result in the case being dismissed without

prejudice. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Order to Show Cause. Accordingly, this

matter is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The

Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:February 3, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02610-JSW Document 13 Filed 02/03/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT GREYGRASS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

et al,

Defendant.

 /

Case Number: CV09-02610 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on February 3, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Robert Greygrass

229 Nevada Avenue

Point Richmond, CA 94801

Dated: February 3, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:09-cv-02610-JSW Document 13 Filed 02/03/10 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          19,049
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                13,713
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        585,335
<ALLOWANCE>                                    350,864
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 674,467
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                   214,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            143,215
<LONG-TERM>                                    100,896
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           192
<OTHER-SE>                                     216,164
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 674,467
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 80,494
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  977
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   902
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                82,373
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,733
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           60,640
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   58,586
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                156,666
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 66,050
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      40,620
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,620
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.03
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    17.9
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                   156,377
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               244,084
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  295,480
<RECOVERIES>                                    10,742
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              350,864
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           350,864
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
### SUBCHAPTER II—UNITED STATES RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
#### GUARANTY TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. GRIFFITHS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 6, 1903.)

1. Trial — Calendar—Length of Trial.

When a trial will “necessarily” occupy more than two hours, the court, in the exercise of its discretion, should send the case to the foot of the general calendar.

Appeal from trial term, New York county.

Action by the Guaranty Trust Company of New York against William J. Griffiths. From an order placing the action on the preferred calendar for trial, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J„ and HATCH, McLAUGH-LIN, O’BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.

Adam Frank, for appellant.

Julien T. Davies, Jr., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We are of the opinion that, upon the facts presented, we ought not to interfere with the discretion exercised by the court *at*Special Term in placing this action on the preferred calendar for trial. If the trial, however, necessarily occupies more than two hours, as the attorney for the appellant contends it will, then the trial court should exercise the discretion which it has, and send the case to the foot of the general calendar.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with $io costs and disbursements.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-121443and No. 333-134389 on Form S-8 and No. 333-134415 on Form S-3 of our reports, dated March 13, 2007,relating to the consolidated financial statements of Interline Brands, Inc.,a Delaware corporation, and its subsidiaries and management’s report on theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Interline Brands, Inc. for theyear ended December 29, 2006.

Jacksonville, FloridaMarch 13, 2007

----