alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

JACK HAUGHT, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, 

Defendant.

Case No. 1:12-cv-02515

Hon. Virginia M. Kendall

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF

ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND INCENTIVE AWARD

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), Plaintiff Jack Haught (“Plaintiff”)

respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order approving Plaintiff’s request for an award of

reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses to Class Counsel and an incentive award for his role as

Class Representative in connection with the Parties’ proposed class action Settlement of this 

matter. Plaintiff’s motion is based up on his Notice of Motion (Dkt. 80), the Memorandum of 

Points and Authorities (and the exhibits attached thereto) in support of the motion (Dkt. 79), and 

the record in this matter, along with any oral argument that may be presented to the Court and 

evidence submitted in connection therewith. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jack Haught, individually and on behalf of the Class,

respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order (1) approving an award of $350,000 in 

attorneys’ fees and expenses to Class Counsel, (2) approving an incentive award of $2,000 to 

Plaintiff as Class Representative in recognition of his efforts on behalf of the Class, and (3) 

providing such other and further relief as the Court deems reasonable and just.

Case: 1:12-cv-02515 Document #: 81 Filed: 10/10/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:726
2

Respectfully submitted,

JACK HAUGHT, individually and on behalf of a 

class of similarly situated individuals,

Dated: October 10, 2014 By: /s/ Benjamin H. Richman

 One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Jay Edelson

jedelson@edelson.com

Rafey S. Balabanian

rbalabanian@edelson.com

Benjamin H. Richman

brichman@edelson.com

Christopher L. Dore

cdore@edelson.com

EDELSON PC

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 

Chicago, Illinois 60654 

Tel: 312.589.6370 

Fax: 312.589.6378 

Case: 1:12-cv-02515 Document #: 81 Filed: 10/10/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:727
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Benjamin H. Richman, an attorney, certify that on October 10, 2014, I served the 

above and foregoing Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and 

Incentive Award by causing true and accurate copies of such paper to be filed and transmitted to 

the persons shown below via the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system.

/s/ Benjamin H. Richman

Case: 1:12-cv-02515 Document #: 81 Filed: 10/10/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:728
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 13.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Elron Electronic
Industries Ltd. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, Doron Birger, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to sec.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
     Company.

Date: June 28, 2004


                                        /s/ Doron Birger
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Doron Birger
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
Case: 3:12-cr-50027 Document #: 52-1 Filed: 01/31/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:340
Docket No: FAA - 2014 - 1044 Dir ID: 2014 - NM - 148 -AD
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 40325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16714]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the North Dakota Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the North 
Dakota Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 2 p.m. 
(CDT) on Tuesday, July 24, 2012, at the River Room, Fargo City Hall, 
200 N. 3rd Street, Fargo, ND 58102.
    The purpose of the planning meeting is to discuss civil rights 
issues in the state and to select a project topic.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the 
comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days of the 
meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional 
Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 999 18th Street, Suite 1380 
South, Denver, CO 80202. They may be faxed to (303) 866-1050 or emailed 
to ebohor@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may 
contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at (303) 866-1040.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both 
before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this 
advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at the 
above email or street address.
    Deaf or hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and 
require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the 
Rocky Mountain Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before 
the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, on July 3, 2012.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2012-16714 Filed 7-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
<PAGE>

                                                               EXHIBIT 10.15 (a)

                    FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                    ---------------------------------------


     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (this "Amendment"), made this 6/th/ day of March,
2000, is made to that certain Employment Agreement (the "Agreement") by and
between ROBERT N. WILDRICK ("Executive") and JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC.
("Employer"), dated as of November 1, l999.

     WHEREAS, Executive and Employer are the sole parties to the Employment
Agreement; and

     WHEREAS, Executive and Employer have agreed to amend the Employment
Agreement,

     NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, Executive and Employer hereby amend
the Employment Agreement as follows:

     1. Section 4.2 B    Guaranteed Bonus is hereby amended by adding the
                         -----------------
following sentence at the end thereof: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained herein, in the event Executive terminates this Agreement as a result
of a change in control pursuant to Section 5.4, the guaranteed bonus of $168,750
for the period from January 30, 2000 through October 30, 2000 shall be due and
payable in full on the last day of the Employment Period."

     2. Section 6.1      Termination Without Cause by Employer or for Good
                         -------------------------------------------------
Reason or Change of Control by Executive is hereby amended by deleting from the
----------------------------------------
5/th/ and 11/th/ lines thereof the phrase ", within 60 days of the date of
termination," and substituting in lieu thereof in each case the phrase ", on the
last day of the Employment Period,".

     3. Section 6.3      Termination for Cause Following a Change in Control is
                         ---------------------------------------------------
hereby amended by adding to the 3/rd/ line thereof, immediately following the
word " Executive" the phrase ", on the last day of the Employment Period,".

        Except as specifically amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect according to its terms. To the extent of any
conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the terms of the remainder of
the Employment Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall control and prevail.
Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have those respective
meanings attributed to them in the Employment Agreement. This Amendment shall
hereafter be deemed a part of the Employment Agreement for all purposes.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of
the date first above written.

JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC.

By: /s/ Peter V. Handal                        /s/ Robert N. Wildrick
   --------------------------                  ----------------------------
    Peter V. Handal,                           ROBERT N. WILDRICK
    Chairman, Compensation Committee
#### 22.403-1 Construction Wage Rate Requirements statute.

40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter IV, Wage Rate Requirements (Construction), formerly known as the Davis-Bacon Act, provides that contracts in excess of $2,000 to which the United States or the District of Columbia is a party for construction, alteration, or repair (including painting and decorating) of public buildings or public works within the United States, shall contain a clause (see 52.222-6) that no laborer or mechanic employed directly upon the site of the work shall receive less than the prevailing wage rates as determined by the Secretary of Labor.

[79 FR 24203, Apr. 29, 2014]
#### Furr *v.*Bank of Fairmount.

April 18, 1913.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Eite. Murray superior court. November 23, 1912.

*W. E. Mann,*for plaintiff.

*W. T. Townsend,*and J. *M. Neel,*for defendant.

Evans, P. J.

1. Where a sheriff served a rule nisi to foreclose a mortgage on realty in proper time, but inadvertently dated his return so as to make it appear that the service was made in the future and at a time subsequent to the term at which the rule absolute was granted, and the' rule absolute recites service of the rule nisi according to law, such return is thereafter amendable by the sheriff, who is in office, without order of court, so as to make the return show the true date of the service. *Manley*v. *McKenzie,*128 *Ga.*348 (57 S. E. 705); *Thornton*v. *Hitchcock,*ante, 749 (78 S. E. 179).

2. Where a petition was filed to foreclose a mortgage on realty, addressed to the superior court of Murray county, and a rule nisi was issued thereon, bearing the caption of Murray county, and was duly served, and at the return term a rule absolute was granted by the court and duly entered upon the minutes of the superior court of Murray county, such judgment absolute is not invalid because at the head of the paper on which it is written and before the statement of the ease appear the words “Georgia, Bartow County.”

3. In 'the foreclosure of a mortgage on realty to secure the debt of the mortgagor and also that of a partnership of which he is a member, it is proper to enter up a special judgment against the mortgagor, to be made out of the mortgaged property for the full amount of the secured debts.

*4.*It is no ground to enjoin the orderly progress of a mortgage fi.' fa., at the instance of the mortgagor, that some of the land which is included in the mortgage was not his individual property, but that of a partnership of which he was a member.

*5. A*motion to award damages on the ground that the case was brought to this court for delay only must be denied; the judgment to which exception is taken being the refusal of an interlocutory injunction, and not a money judgment. *Pittsburg-Bartow Mining*& *Mfg. Co.*v. *Washington Trust Co.,*137 *Ga.*232 (73 S. E. 367).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT (10)(a)

                              CONSENT OF AUDITORS


<PAGE>


                        Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Auditors"
in the Statement of Additional Information and to the use of our reports (1)
dated February 18, 2000 with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements
and schedules of PFL Life Insurance Company, and (2) dated January 28, 2000 with
respect to certain subaccounts of PFL Retirement Builder Variable Annuity
Account, which are available for investment by contract owners of The One Income
Annuity, included in Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to the Registration
Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-78743) and related Prospectus of The One Income
Annuity.


                                             /s/  Ernst & Young, LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
April 24, 2000
EXHIBIT 10(c)

                 CONSENT OF SWIDLER BERLIN SHEREFF FRIEDMAN, LLP

         We hereby consent to the reference to our firm included in the
prospectus and statement of additional information of Mercury Select Growth
Fund of Mercury Asset Management Funds, Inc. filed as part of Registration
Statement No. 333-32242.

                                               /s/ Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP
                                               Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP

New York, New York
April 28, 2000
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

RICHARD BEACHAM, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 11 C 7936

)

AEROTEK, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Oshkosh Specialty Vehicles, Inc. (“Oshkosh”) has filed its

Answer and Defenses (“ADs”) to the race discrimination Complaint

brought against it by Richard Beacham (“Beacham”). This sua

sponte memorandum opinion and order is triggered by a repeatedly

occurring problematic aspect of that responsive pleading.

Many of the Answer’s responses (Answer ¶¶6, 7, 16-21, 23,

24, 27-38 and 42) follow an invocation of the disclaimer of some

of Beacham’s allegations--a disclaimer that tracks the language

of Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(b)(5)--by stating that Oshkosh

“therefore denies same.” That is of course oxymoronic--how can a

party that asserts (presumably in good faith) that it lacks even

enough information to form a belief as to the truth of an

allegation then proceed to deny it in accordance with Rule 11(b)? 

Accordingly the quoted phrase is stricken from each of those

paragraphs of the Answer.

For years this Court has been patient with lawyers who

obviously know Rule 8(b)(5) and employ its terms accurately but
who then impermissibly go on in the manner that has been

described here --it has been a full decade since this Court 1

issued and published the Appendix in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001) that included

the same failing as one of the repeated errors by defense counsel

that it has encountered over the years. But even though the sin

thus committed may be venial, forgiveness does not necessarily

follow. Enough is enough--because it would appear that the

purported denial cannot have been advanced in the objective good

faith demanded by Rule 11(b), Oshkosh’s counsel is ordered to

show cause on or before January 30, 2012 (1) why the filing has

not violated that Rule and (2) why, if so, no sanction should be

imposed (see Rule 11(c)(3) and (4)).

To turn to Oshkosh’s ADs, two of them call for brief

comments. Although what is said here is not intended to be

exhaustive, so that Beacham’s counsel is free to raise any other

asserted problems, ADs 1 and 5 bear specific mention:

1. AD 1 is not truly an affirmative defense, for

Oshkosh’s Answer ¶3 had already denied its employment of

Beacham for Title VII purposes--in that respect, see App’x

¶5 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D.

276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001). Accordingly AD 1 is stricken

 By chance, today’s filings in this Court’s chambers 1

include one by another lawyer who has committed the same offense.

2
(having put the matter in issue, Oshkosh suffers no loss

thereby).

2. AD 5, which asserts Oshkosh’s right of

indemnification by codefendant Aerotek, Inc., is not of

course a defense to Beacham’s claim against it. That AD is

also stricken.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: January 20, 2012

3
1415.404-4 Profit. ( a ) DOI's policy is to use a structured approach for determining the profit or fee prenegotiation objective in acquisition actions that require cost analysis based on the profit analysis factors in FAR 15.404-4, as implemented and supplemented in this section.
( b ) In addition to the factors listed in FAR 15.404-4(d), one additional factor, “Other Costs,” will be used in evaluating and determining a weighted profit or fee. For further guidance also refer to the Armed Services Pricing Manual (ASPM No. 1). The “Other Costs” factor shall include the contribution of all other direct costs including travel, direct support and hiring of consultants for contract performance.
[75 FR 19829, Apr. 15, 2010, as amended at 76 FR 50141, Aug. 12, 2011]
#### Adams *et al. vs.*Clark.

1. A justice of the peace, on a trial before a jury in his court, may or may not give the law in charge to the jury, at his option. If he does so, and charges the law correctly, it will not be ground for a new trial.

2. The verdict is supported by the evidence in this case.

Justice Courts. Yerdict. Before Judge Speer. Pike Superior Court. October Term, 1879.

Beported in the decision.

S. D. Irvin ; James H. Walker, for plaintiffs in error.

J. A. Hunt, for defendant.

Jackson, Justice.

The suit in the justice court was for twenty-five dollars, on a note for the hire of a horse for a year for farm work. The defense was that the horse was worthless, and could not and did not do the work, but broke down and died after some three weeks of very inefficient work.

On the trial before the jury, after a charge by the justice of the peace, the jury found for defendant, and the plaintiffs carried the case to the superior court by *certiorari*on the ground that the justice of the peace charged the jury at all, and that the verdict is without evidence and against law. The *certiorari*was dismissed and the judgment affirmed, and error is assigned here therefor.

1. The justice of the peace may or may not give the law in charge to the jury, at his option. He is not bound to do so, but to do so if it pleases him to give the charge, and if the law as given in charge be correct, is not error which would demand and necessitate the setting aside of the verdict and the grant of a new trial. 21 *Ga.,*192.

2. The evidence is that the horse did utterly fail — died in three weeks — must have been diseased when.hired, and it is ample to sustain the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.
(June 14, 1962)

#### In the Matter of Henry Haduc, Petitioner, v. Frank S. Hogan, as District Attorney of New York County, et al., Respondents.

Motions to dismiss petition as a matter of law granted and the proceeding dismissed, without costs, with leave to petitioner to renew upon a verification made by the petitioner. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### Frank A. Buscher, Appellant, v. Karl V. Ehrich, Defendant, and Esther M. Ehrich, Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed, with $25 costs and disbursements and motion denied, with $10 costs. Memorandum: *888The question presented is whether the defendant, Esther M. Ehrich, was served with the summons in accordance with section 225 of the Civil Practice Act which requires that service “must be made by delivering a copy thereof * * * to the defendant in person The facts are not in dispute. The process server, after several ineffectual attempts to serve, stopped at the residence of defendant Esther M. Ehrich and her husband. The husband came to the door. Mrs. Ehrich was sitting in the front room about eight feet away and within sight and hearing of the process server and her husband. Mr. Ehrich told the process server that Mrs. Ehrich was “sitting there in the chair.” She looked up and the process server told both that he had summonses for them and served two papers on Mr. Ehrich. He then attempted to enter the house by proceeding up the front step but was stopped by Mr. Ehrich. The process server then stated to Mrs. Ehrich that he had a summons for her also. She refused to come to the door although she heard what the process server said. Mr. Ehrich said he would take all the papers and the process server left three summonses with Mr. Ehrich and said that two were for him and one was for Mrs. Ehrich. All this time Mrs. Ehrich was looking at the process server and listening to what was said. It is contended by the respondent that because the paper was not physically handed to Mrs. Ehrich there was no service. We do not agree. Service cannot be evaded by such avoidance and by subsequent reliance upon technicalities. (See *Wright*v. *Bennett,*note in 30 Abb. N. C. 65, affd. 115 N. Y. 645; *Matter of*Barbara, 7 A D 2d 340.) (Appeal from order of Erie County Court vacating a default judgment taken against defendant Esther M. Ehrich.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
1733.203 Applicability. ( a ) The Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) procurement executive shall make the determination prescribed under FAR 33.203(b).
( b ) Requests for determinations under paragraph (a) of this section shall be submitted by OPM's contracting officer through OPM's head of the contracting activity to the procurement executive for further action.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 47 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.47
                                    Agreed to September 26, 2018        

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 6157, the Clerk of the House 
of Representatives shall make the following corrections:
        (1) Amend the long title so as to read: ``Making consolidated 
    appropriations for the Departments of Defense, Labor, Health and 
    Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal 
    year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes.''.
        (2) In section 101(4) of division C, strike ``31'' and insert 
    ``141''.
Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
1845.607-170 Contractor's approved scrap procedure. ( a ) When a contractor has an approved scrap procedure, certain property may be routinely disposed of in accordance with that procedure and not processed under this section.
( b ) - ( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) Property in scrap condition, other than that disposed of through the contractor's approved scrap procedure, shall be reported on appropriate inventory schedules for disposition in accordance with the provisions of FAR part 45 and 1845.
[62 FR 36722, July 9, 1997, as amended at 69 FR 44610, July 27, 2004]