alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robin Weintraub, Appellant, v Grey Direct, Inc., Respondent.

[832 NYS2d 803]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered March 6, 2006, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted based upon the clear and unambiguous agreement pursuant to which plaintiff was employed by defendant *(see*W.W.W. *Assoc. v Giancontieri,*77 NY2d 157, 162 [1990]). Contrary to plaintiff’s claims, the agreement did not preclude her reassignment and her reassignment did not constitute a constructive discharge.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
1328.310-70 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses. ( a ) Insert clause 1352.228-70, *Insurance Coverage,* in all contracts when: ( 1 ) Government property is involved;
( 2 ) The contract amount is expected to be over the simplified acquisition threshold, and
( 3 ) The contract will require work on a Government installation
( b ) ( 1 ) The clause is not required in fixed-price solicitations and contracts if: ( i ) Only a small amount of work is required on the Government installation (*e.g.*, a few brief visits per month); or
( ii ) All the work on the Government installation is to be performed outside the United States, its possessions and Puerto Rico.
( 2 ) The contracting officer may increase the dollar limits established in the clause when it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Prior to increasing the dollar limits the contracting officer shall seek the advice of Procurement Counsel.
( c ) Insert clause 1352.228-71, *Deductibles Under Required Insurance Coverage—Cost-Reimbursement*, in all cost-reimbursement contracts when the clause at 1352.228-70, *Insurance Coverage*, is used.
( d ) Insert clause 1352.228-72, *Deductibles Under Required Insurance Coverage—Fixed Price*, in all fixed-price contracts when the clause at 1352.228-70, *Insurance Coverage*, is used.
( e ) Insert clauses 1352.228-73 through 1352.228-75, unless otherwise indicated by the specific instructions for their use below, in any contract for the lease of aircraft.
( f ) Insert clause 1252.228-73, *Loss of or Damage to Leased Aircraft*, in any contract for the lease of aircraft, except in the following circumstances: ( 1 ) When the hourly rental rate does not exceed $250 and the total rental cost for any single transaction is not in excess of $2,500:
( 2 ) When the cost of hull insurance does not exceed 10 percent of the contract rate; or
( 3 ) When the lessor's insurer does not grant a credit for uninsured hours, thereby preventing the lessor from granting the same to the Government.
( g ) Insert clause 1352.228-74, *Fair Market Value of Aircraft*, in all aircraft lease/rentals.
( h ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1352.228-75, *Risk and Indemnities*, in any contract for the lease of aircraft when the Government will have exclusive use of the aircraft for a period of less than thirty days.
( i ) Insert clause 1352.228-76, *Approval of Group Insurance Plans*, in all cost reimbursable contracts.
( j ) The contractor shall submit the plan to the CO for approval under cost-reimbursement contracts, before buying insurance under a group insurance plan. Any change in benefits provided under an approved plan that can reasonably be expected to increase significantly the cost to the Government shall require similar approval.
### §1983c. Provision of information to borrowers

#### (a) In general

On request of a farm borrower of a farmer program loan, the Secretary shall make available to the borrower the following:

(1) One copy of each document signed by the borrower.

(2) One copy of each appraisal performed with respect to the loan.

(3) All documents that the Secretary otherwise is required to provide to the borrower under any law or rule of law in effect on the date of such request.

#### (b) Construction of section

Subsection (a) shall not be construed to supersede any duty imposed on the Secretary by any law or rule of law in effect immediately before January 6, 1988, unless such duty is in direct conflict with any duty imposed by subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §333C, as added Pub. L. 100–233, title VI, §609, Jan. 6, 1988, 101 Stat. 1668.)
#### 1303.905 Procedures for investigating complaints.

The designee authorized to take specified actions related to Inspector General findings regarding whistleblower complaints of contractor employees is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
#### § 3.3 Applicability.

This part applies to the Secretary of a Military Department, the Directors of the Defense Agencies, and any other official designated by the Secretary of Defense to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants or cooperative agreements for prototype projects that are directly relevant to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, under authority of 10 U.S.C. 2371. Such transactions are commonly referred to as “other transaction” agreements and are hereafter referred to as agreements.

[65 FR 35576, June 5, 2000. Redesignated at 67 FR 54956, Aug. 27, 2002]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
       
<S>                                <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     JUN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                       AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<CASH>                                             926
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,692
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,628
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0 
<PP&E>                                         270,657
<DEPRECIATION>                                 128,093
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 172,401
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0 
<BONDS>                                             0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                         9,536
<OTHER-SE>                                          0 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   172,401
<SALES>                                          5,764
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,144
<CGS>                                            5,563
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,749
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,095
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,548
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,547
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0 
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,547
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.53
        

</TABLE>
#### Dante J. Brecciaroli *v.*Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection

The application by Richard 0. Brooks for permission to file a brief as amicus curiae in the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County is granted, the brief to be filed on or before *673December 10, 1974, in accordance with the requirements of §§ 723 and 724 of the Practice Book, as amended. In the event the time for filing the defendant-appellee’s brief is extended beyond that date, the brief of the amicus curiae shall then be filed on the date fixed by that extension.

*Richard 0. Brooks,*on the application.

*Frank J. Dumark,*in opposition.

Submitted November 13

decided November 26, 1974
§ 861.7 Disclosure of voluntarily provided safety-related information. ( a ) *General.* In accordance with paragraph (h) of the reference in § 861.1 (a), DOD may withhold from public disclosure safety-related information voluntarily provided to DOD by an air carrier for the purposes of this part if DOD determines that— ( 1 ) The disclosure of the information would, in the future, inhibit an air carrier from voluntarily providing such information to DOD or another Federal agency for the purposes of this part or for other air safety purposes; and
( 2 ) The receipt of such information generally enhances the fulfillment of responsibilities under this part or other air safety responsibilities involving DOD or another Federal agency.
( b ) *Processing requests for disclosure of voluntarily provided safety-related information.* Requests for public disclosure will be administratively processed in accordance with 32 CFR part 806, Air Force Freedom of Information Act Program.
( c ) *Disclosure of voluntarily provided safety-related information to other agencies.* The Department of Defense may, at its discretion, disclose voluntarily provided safety-related information submitted under this part by an air carrier, to other agencies with safety responsibilities. The DOD will provide such information to another agency only upon receipt of adequate assurances that it will protect the information from public disclosure, and that it will not release such information unless specifically authorized.
### §7421. Suspension or termination

#### (a) Mandatory suspension or termination

The Secretary shall suspend or terminate an order or a provision of an order if the Secretary finds that an order or a provision of an order obstructs or does not tend to effectuate the purpose of this subchapter, or if the Secretary determines that the order or a provision of an order is not favored by persons voting in a referendum conducted under section 7417 of this title.

#### (b) Implementation of suspension or termination

If, as a result of a referendum conducted under section 7417 of this title, the Secretary determines that an order is not approved, the Secretary shall—

(1) not later than 180 days after making the determination, suspend or terminate, as the case may be, collection of assessments under the order; and

(2) as soon as practicable, suspend or terminate, as the case may be, activities under the order in an orderly manner.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title V, §522, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1047.)
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 133789 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, MICHELE BOTSFORD, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 133789 

 COA: 272513 

Macomb CC: 05-004024-NO 

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CLINTON, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CLINTON 

BUILDING AUTHORITY, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 20, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0723 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
#### § 553.18 Eligibility for burial in U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery.

Only the residents of the Armed Forces Retirement Home are eligible for interment in the U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery. Resident eligibility criteria for the Armed Forces Retirement Home is provided for at 24 U.S.C. 412.
#### In the Matter of Susan M. Bruch, Petitioner, v John L. Lascaris, as Commissioner of the Onondaga County Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

— Determination unanimously confirmed, without costs. Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred to this court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (subd [g]), petitioner seeks review of the determination of respondent Commissioner of the Onondaga County Department of Social Services, as affirmed after a hearing by respondent Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, denying her application for medical assistance upon the ground that she was not actively seeking *811employment. Subdivision 1 of section 366 of the Social Services Law sets forth the eligibility requirements for medical assistance. Petitioner claims that she is qualified as a "person eligible for home relief’ under section 366 (subd 1, par [a], cl [1]) which states: "Medical assistance shall be given under this title to a person who requires such assistance and who (a) * * * (1) is receiving or is eligible for home relief’. The regulations of the New York State Department of Social Services provide that: "The social services official shall: (1) Require an HR [home relief] applicant * * * as a condition of eligibility for assistance and care, to: * * * (iv) Give evidence as requested, that he is actively seeking employment” (18 NYCRR 385.3 [b] [1] [iv]). Thus, in order to qualify for home relief and therefore for medical assistance, petitioner must show that she was actively seeking employment. Evidence adduced at the hearing shows that petitioner applied for medical assistance to cover the expenses of medical treatment which she received after a bicycle accident on May 22, 1977. At the time of the accident she was on summer recess after her first year of law school, and planned to return to school in the fall. She had a part-time job. She testified that between January and May, 1977 she had applied for 19 jobs. Fifteen of these were law-related positions which were for the summer only or which might become part time in the fall. With the exception of one application for work as a waitress, she did not seek employment in the two fields in which she had previous experience: waitressing and substitute teaching. Nor did she demonstrate that she had applied for other types of employment for which she concededly would be qualified, e.g., general office, clerical, or sales work. Petitioner did not present evidence sufficient to show that she was actively seeking employment (see *Matter of Martin v Berger,*55 AD2d 1030). Respondents’ determination is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed (see *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 230-231). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Onondaga Supreme Court.) Present — Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Dillon, Hancock, Jr., and Schnepp, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

INNERWORKINGS, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 841

)

P’ESCO, LLC, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

InnerWorkings, Inc. (“InnerWorkings”) has filed this action

against P’esco, LLC (“P’esco”) and Mark Pofsky and Robert Strem,

each individually and as a representative of P’esco, seeking to

invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction on diversity of

citizenship grounds. This memorandum order is issued sua sponte

because InnerWorkings’ counsel has flunked the obligation to

establish such federal jurisdiction.

Complaint ¶2 properly identifies InnerWorkings’ dual

citizenship in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1), while

Complaint ¶¶5 and 6 specify that each of the individual

defendants is a California citizen. But this is all that

Complaint ¶4 says as to P’esco:

Defendant, P’ESCO is a foreign corporation that is

authorized to do business in Illinois, including Cook

County, Illinois.

As that language reflects, Complaint ¶4 speaks only of facts

that are jurisdictionally irrelevant when a limited liability

company is involved. Those allegations ignore more than a dozen 
years of repeated teaching from our Court of Appeals (see, e.g.,

Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7 Cir. 1998) and a th

whole battery of cases since then, exemplified by Thomas v.

Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533-34 (7 Cir. 2007)). And that th

teaching has of course been echoed many times over by this Court

and its colleagues.

For a good many years this Court was content simply to

identify such failures to the lawyers representing plaintiffs in

pursuance of its mandated obligation to “police subject matter

jurisdiction sua sponte” (Wernsing v. Thompson, 423 F.3d 732, 743

(7 Cir. 2005)). But there is really no excuse for counsel’s th

present lack of knowledge of such a firmly established principle,

after well over a full decade’s repetition by our Court of

Appeals and others. Hence it seems entirely appropriate to

impose a reasonable cost for such a failing.

Accordingly, not only InnerWorkings’ Complaint but also this

action are dismissed (cf. Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th

Cir. 1998)), with InnerWorkings and its counsel jointly obligated

to pay a fine of $350 to the District Court Clerk if an

appropriate and timely Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion hereafter

provides the missing information that leads to a vacatur of this

judgment of dismissal. Because this dismissal is attributable 1

 That fine is equivalent to the cost of a second filing 1

fee, because a new action would have to be brought if the defect

identified here turns out to be curable.

2
to InnerWorkings’ lack of establishment of federal subject matter

jurisdiction, by definition it is a dismissal without prejudice.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: February 7, 2012

3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

ARRIVALSTAR S.A. and MELVINO 

TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, 

Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

Case No.: 1:12-cv-0773

BRIGHTSKY LLC, XNNOVATION 

CANADA, INC., INTELLIGENTONE 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and SECURACOM 

GPS, INC. D/B/A GPS ANYPLACE 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Defendants. 

 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF ALL DEFENDANTS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiffs ArrivalStar S.A. and Melvino 

Technologies Limited (“Plaintiffs”), hereby notify this Court that Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss: 

1) Defendants BrightSky LLC, IntelligentOne Technologies, Inc., and SecuraCom GPS, 

Inc. D/B/A GPS AnyPlace with prejudice; 

2) with prejudice with respect to the Defendant Xnnovation Canada, Inc. in connection 

with their use or sale of the products named in the lawsuit and/or any other product made, used 

or sold by BrightSky LLC, IntelligentOne Technologies, Inc., and SecuraCom GPS, Inc. D/B/A 

GPS AnyPlace; and 

3) without prejudice to Defendant Xnnovation Canada, Inc. in all other respects. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00773 Document #: 10 Filed: 03/13/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:301
2 

Dated: March 13, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Anthony E. Dowell

Anthony E. Dowell 

aedowell@dowellbaker.com 

DOWELL BAKER, P.C. 

201 Main St., Suite 710 

Lafayette, IN 47901 

(765) 429-4004 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS 

 ARRIVALSTAR S.A. and 

 MELVINO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED 

Case: 1:12-cv-00773 Document #: 10 Filed: 03/13/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:302
20-F










EXHIBIT 10.1  



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 



We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 File No. 333-10840; Form S-8 File No.
333-12814; Form S-8 File No. 333-13186; Form S-8 File No. 333-91650; Form S-8 File No.
333-122128) of Optibase Ltd. of our report, dated January 31, 2006, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Optibase Ltd., included in the Annual
Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2005. 



		
		
		
		
		
	Tel-Aviv, Israel	KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER
	April 12, 2006	A Member of Ernst & Young Global
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       73,640
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      6,096
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          13,797
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         4,865
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   3,290
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,688
<COMMON>                                         5,529
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       17,097
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              8,739
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  31,365
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        363
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            40,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               6,480
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  23,480
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  101,688
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       48,463
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             2,222
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      12,062
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      16,082
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          9,171
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               2,356
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  11,527
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         3,978
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,556
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        240
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    3,316
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         2,460
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           7,898
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>