alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021148EN.01000701.xml

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Lennestadt (Germany) lodged on 19 January 2021 — Nemzeti Útdíjfizetési Szolgáltató Zrt., National Toll Payment Services PLC v NW

(Case C-30/21)

(2021/C 148/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Lennestadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nemzeti Útdíjfizetési Szolgáltató Zrt., National Toll Payment Services PLC

Defendant: NW

Question referred

Is Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that judicial proceedings brought by a State-owned company against a natural person domiciled in another Member State, for the purposes of recovering a debt, which is punitive in nature, for the unauthorised use of a toll road, come within the scope of that regulation?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

---
# C_2021278EN.01002801.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland represented by the Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat v LE

(Case C-248/21)

(2021/C 278/39)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: LE

Questions referred

| 1. | Does suspension by the authorities of the implementation of a transfer decision, which is revocable only on account of the fact that transfers are (temporarily) impossible in fact due to the COVID-19 pandemic, fall within the scope of Article 27(4) of the Dublin III Regulation (1) during appeal proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does suspension by the authorities of the implementation of a transfer decision, which is revocable only on account of the fact that transfers are (temporarily) impossible in fact due to the COVID-19 pandemic, fall within the scope of Article 27(4) of the Dublin III Regulation (1) during appeal proceedings?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does such a suspension decision interrupt the time limit for transfer pursuant to Article 29(1) of the Dublin III Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does such a suspension decision interrupt the time limit for transfer pursuant to Article 29(1) of the Dublin III Regulation?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Does this also apply if, prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, a court had dismissed an application by the asylum seeker pursuant to Article 27(3)(c) of the Dublin III Regulation for implementation of the transfer decision to be suspended pending the outcome of the appeal proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Does this also apply if, prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, a court had dismissed an application by the asylum seeker pursuant to Article 27(3)(c) of the Dublin III Regulation for implementation of the transfer decision to be suspended pending the outcome of the appeal proceedings?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

---
# C_2021513EN.01002503.xml

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 20 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — L GmbH v F GmbH, BW, SW

(Case C-336/21) (1)

(2021/C 513/37)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 349, 30.8.2021.

---
ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1: Memo to TPAC dated May 31, 2013 Evidence the substitute TCM was developed th rough a collaborative process that includes participation by all affected juri sdictions and consultation with EPA Evidence the substitute TCM will be implemented on a schedule that is consistent with the schedule for the TCM being removed from the SIP

Attachment 2: “Attachment C” – “Technical An alysis of Proposed Transit Service Increase TCM Substitution for the Portland Metropolitan Region” Evidence the substitute TCM achieves equal or greater emissions reductions

Attachment 3: 2013 TPAC Members and Alternates Evidence of collaborative process

Attachment 4: Written Comments 4.1 Metro letter dated August 6, 2013 4.2 OPAL letter dated August 19, 2013 4.3 Email from John Charles dated August 19, 2013 4.4 Email from Dan Radonski dated July17, 2013

Attachment 5: Oregon Environmental Quality Comm ission meeting of Dec. 11-12, 2013, rulemaking Action item: I, Portland Area Transportation Control Measure [including DEQ response to public comments]

Attachment 6: Public Notice and Affidavit of Publication Evidence of reasonable notice and opportunity for public comment

Attachment 7: TriMet letter of May 20, 2013 Evidence the substitute TCM has adequate pers onnel, funding and authority to implement
the TCM.Attachment 1: Memo to TPAC dated May 31, 2013 Evidence the substitute TCM was developed th rough a collaborative process that includes participation by all affected juri sdictions and consultation with EPA Evidence the substitute TCM will be implemented on a schedule that is consistent with the schedule for the TCM being removed from the SIPAttachment 2: “Attachment C” – “Technical An alysis of Proposed Transit Service Increase TCM Substitution for the Portland Metropolitan Region” Evidence the substitute TCM achieves equal or greater emissions reductionsAttachment 3: 2013 TPAC Members and Alternates Evidence of collaborative processAttachment 4: Written Comments 4.1 Metro letter dated August 6, 2013 4.2 OPAL letter dated August 19, 2013 4.3 Email from John Charles dated August 19, 2013 4.4 Email from Dan Radonski dated July17, 2013Attachment 5: Oregon Environmental Quality Comm ission meeting of Dec. 11-12, 2013, rulemaking Action item: I, Portland Area Transportation Control Measure [including DEQ response to public comments]Attachment 6: Public Notice and Affidavit of Publication Evidence of reasonable notice and opportunity for public commentAttachment 7: TriMet letter of May 20, 2013 Evidence the substitute TCM has adequate pers onnel, funding and authority to implement
the TCM.
AGENDA•Part 1–EPA statistical analysis•Mercury NESHAPFloor•PM NESHAP Floor•Part II–Holcim NESHAP IssuesEPA Analysis•EPA statistical analysis–(reproduction of EPA Hg Floor) started out withdaily Hg emissions, applied variance adjustments,and temporal corrections•EPA claims that the UPL can be used toconvert any data to any frequency ofcompliance.•See Table 1Using 30-day Average•Based on EPA’s analysis and EPA’s desire to establish a30-day limit – gives rise to following question–“How would the final floor differ if the Hg analysis wascompleted using 30-day averages rather than dailyvalues?”•Using EPA analysis except all data represented a 30-day average•The variance was recalculated for 30-day•The intra-quarry was changed from daily to 30-day average•The temporal correction was also changed to 30-dayUsing 30-day Average•In this re-analysism equals 1,because data is alreadyexpressed as 30-day average and there is no need toconvert from daily to 30-day•Findings showed that using daily valuesunderestimated the floor by-40%.•Certainly EPA’s conclusions will be that’s an artifactandindustry only likes it because it provides a higher floor.•See Table 2EPA Analysis•Logic would suggest that either way shouldprovide approximately the same floor.•Can EPA explain why using daily values wouldbe more appropriate than using 30-dayvalueswhen the limit will be based on a 30-dayemission limit?Used THC Data to Test EPA Approach•In an effort to test this logical approach vs. EPAapproach, we used the THC data set•First we determine the actual 99thpercentile forfive sources•Applied the UPL equation to each and ineachcase the UPL underestimated the actual 99thpercentileTHC Data Results•Final evaluation included analysis of the top fiveTHC sources–Determined the long term actual 99thpercentile ofthe five sources–Created subset databases of 30, 60, 90, and 120 dailyvalues–These daily values underwent the same statisticalanalysis used by EPA for establishing the Hg floor(withthe exception of the intra-quarry adjustment)•Completed the analysis using 30-day rollingaverages to avoid the conversion from daily to 30-days as part of the UPL calculationFindings of THC AnalysisUPL From Daily Values30-day 30-Day ave Normal Log NormalRolling Ave. Actual 99th UPL (18.7) % Diff UPL (18.7) %Diff30 27.6 7.9 -71.4 3.7 -86.760 27.6 6.5 -76.5 3.1 -88.790 27.6 7.5 -72.7 4.9 -82.2120 27.6 9.1 -66.9 5.0 -81.7UPL starting out with 30day average30-day 30-Day ave NormalRolling Ave. n Actual 99th UPL (18.7) % Diff30 33 27.6 25.7 -6.7Particulate Matter•As part of PCA comments–we stated EPA did not utilize all available PM datacollected by the industry.•Industry contains approximately150kilns•Each source has collected at least two PMtests (of three runs) since the NESHAPaffected date.•PM floor should include at least 18 sourcesnot 6 sourcesParticulate Matter•UPL approach is questionable–Fact the conversion from daily to 30-day averagesis flawed as shown by the THC validation–High probability that one hour data converted to30-day averages will have the same results as theTHC data
#### Willie James ASH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. I-428.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Sept. 5, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2020247EN.01003601.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/36

---

Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Stadtwerke Leipzig v Commission

(Case T-313/20)

(2020/C 247/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stadtwerke Leipzig GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant's decision of 26 February 2019 declaring the merger ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ compatible with the common market (Case M.8871) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant's decision of 26 February 2019 declaring the merger ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ compatible with the common market (Case M.8871) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1);

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on three pleas in law, which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-312/20, EVH v Commission.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                   5

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                            2,477
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                    26,807
<ALLOWANCES>                      1,995
<INVENTORY>                      33,755
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 77,678
<PP&E>                          147,630
<DEPRECIATION>                  117,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  140,537
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            59,674
<BONDS>                          60,218
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                         788
<COMMON>                          2,668
<OTHER-SE>                       13,603
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    140,537
<SALES>                          91,780
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                130,128
<CGS>                            57,382
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    84,146
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 64,578
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               (6,367)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (24,963)
<INCOME-TAX>                      1,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                    (26,163)
<EPS-BASIC>                       (1.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (1.11)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.30


 


2nd
Amendment to the

Series A Loan Agreement


 


 


“Amendment”


 


 


of


 


 







 






 


 


between


 


 


NLS
Pharmaceutics AG


Alter
Postplatz 2


CH-6370
Stans


“Borrower”


 


 


and


 


 


Magnetic
Rock Investment AG


c/o
Ronald Hafner


 


 



 


“Lender”


 


 


(Borrower
and Lender each a “Party”


collectively
the “Parties”)


 






     


    	Amendment
	2/3



    







 


WHEREAS


 


		A.	The
                                         Borrower is a Swiss stock corporation with its registered office at Alter Postplatz 2,
                                         6370 Stans, Switzerland, and company no. CHE-447.067.36 active in the area of developing
                                         and commercializing the active ingredient Mazindol for the treatment of ADHD.



 


		B.	The
                                         Lender and the Borrower entered into a duly executed series A loan agreement, as amended
                                         in October 2020 (“Agreement”), whereas the Lender grants to the Borrower
                                         a loan in the amount of CHF 500’000.00 (“Loan Amount”).



 


		C.	The
                                         maturity date for the repayment of the Loan Amount with accrued interest was set at 31 December
                                         2020 (“Maturity Date”).



 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:


 


Any
capitalized terms, if not defined otherwise in this Amendment, shall have the meaning as set forth in the Agreement.


 


		1.	Extension
                                         of Maturity Date



 


The
Maturity Date as set forth in section 6 of the Agreement shall be retrospectively extended from 31 December 2020 to 31 March 2021.


 


The
Parties therefore confirm that no default interest as set forth in section 4.2 of the Agreement has accrued so far. In any case,
the Lender waives any claim with regard to default interest.


 


		2.	Governing
                                         law and jurisdiction



 


		2.1.	Governing
                                         Law



 


This
Amendment shall in all respects be governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive laws of Swiss law.


 


		2.2.	Jurisdiction



 


All
disputes arising out of or in connection with this Amendment, including disputes regarding its conclusion, validity, binding effect,
amendment, breach, termination or rescission shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of Zurich,
canton of Zurich, Switzerland, venue being Zurich 1.


 


 


[signature
page to follow]



 






     


    	Amendment
	3/3



    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have signed this Amendment on the date first written above


 


Magnetic
Rock Investment AG


 





	/s/
    Ronal Hafner	 	 
	Name: Ronald Hafner	 	Name:
	Function: Chairman of the Board	 	Function: 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	NLS
    Pharmaceutics AG	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Alexander
    Zwyer	 	/s/ Ronald Hafner
	Name: Alexander Zwyer	 	Name: Ronald Hafner
	Function: Chairman
    of the Board	 	Function: Chairman
    of the Board
Exhibit 10.7Material Contract

PROMISSORY
NOTE

|         |    
|-------- | ---
|$100,000 | .00
|         |    

FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned Newsearch, Inc., a Colorado corporation
(Maker) promises to pay to the order of VISION CAPITAL PARTNERS AA
LTD. (Lender), at its principal office, or at such other place as
may be designated in writing by the holders of this Promissory Note
(Note), the principal sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS
($100,000.00) (the Principal Sum). The unpaid Principal Sum shall
bear interest at 7.5% per annum and shall be due in twelve (12) months.

All
payments to be made under this Note shall be payable in lawful money of the
United States of America which shall be legal tender for public and private
debts at the time of payment.

In
the event that an action is instituted to collect this Note, or any portion
thereof, Maker promises to pay all costs of collection, including but not
limited to reasonable attorneys fees, court costs, and such other sums as
the court may establish.

In
the event of a default under this Note when due, then the holder of this Note,
at its election, may declare the entire unpaid Principal Sum due and payable.

Every
provision hereof is intended to be several. If any provision of this Note is
determined, by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid or
unenforceable, such illegality, invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect
the other provisions hereof, which shall remain binding and enforceable.

This
Note is made in the State of Colorado and it is mutually agreed that Colorado
law shall apply to the interpretation of the terms and conditions of this Note.

All
agreements between the holder of this Note and Maker are hereby expressly
limited so that in no contingency or event whatsoever, whether by reason of
deferment or acceleration of the maturity of this Note or otherwise, shall the
rate of interest hereunder exceed the maximum permissible under applicable law
with respect to the holder. If, from any circumstances whatsoever, the rate of
interest resulting from the payment and/or accrual of any amount of interest
hereunder, at any time that payment of interest is due and/or at any time that
interest is accrued, shall exceed the limits prescribed by such applicable law,
then the payment and/or accrual of such interest shall be reduced to that
resulting from the maximum rate of interest permissible under such applicable
law. This provision shall never be superseded or waived.

The
makers, endorsers, and/or guarantors of this Note do hereby severally waive
presentment, demand, protest and notices of protest, demand, dishonor and
nonpayment.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument is executed as of the date first
hereinabove set forth.

| | NEWSEARCH,
INC.
| | ---------------

| | By: /s/ Kenneth S. Adessky Kenneth S. Adessky,  Chief Financial Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Dawn M. MANZO, Appellant, v. James V. MANZO, II, Appellee.

No. 72-862.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 16, 1973.

Kendall T. Moran, Titusville, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed, but without prejudice to the appellant’s right to re-open the proceeding and present witnesses as she is advised and as was contemplated by the trial court.

Affirmed.

OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN and MA-GER, JJ., concur.
# C_2021278EN.01002901.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2021 — KP v TV, Gemeinde Bodman-Ludwigshafen

(Case C-256/21)

(2021/C 278/41)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KP

Defendants: TV, Gemeinde Bodman-Ludwigshafen

Question referred

Must Article 124(d) and Article 128 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the EU trade mark court has jurisdiction to rule on the invalidity of an EU trade mark asserted by a counterclaim within the meaning of Article 128 of that regulation even after the action for infringement based on that EU trade mark for the purposes of Article 124(a) has been validly withdrawn?

---

(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).

---
#### MTS Minor Trading, S.A., et al., Appellants, v Carlos B. Diaz, Respondent.

[735 NYS2d 774]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about October 2, 2000, which, after a traverse hearing, granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment and dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed for failure to show that the address where the summons and complaint were delivered to a person other than defendant was defendant’s dwelling place or usual place of abode (CPLR 308 [2]; 5015 [a] [4]; *see, Feinstein v Bergner,*48 NY2d 234, 239-241). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.
Document

Exhibit 10.34
FIRST AMENDMENT OF LEASE


This First Amendment of Lease is made on December 30, 2020, between Liberty Vista, a California limited partnership, ("Lessor"), whose address is 1000 Pioneer Way, El Cajon, CA 92020, and Exagen Diagnostics, Inc., ("Lessee"), with reference to 1221 Liberty Way, San Diego, CA 92083 who agree as follows:


1.Recitals. This First Amendment of Lease is made with reference to the following facts and objectives:
a.Lessor and Lessee entered into a written Lease dated August 15, 2014, as extended February 1, 2018, and as extended February 25, 2020 ("the Lease") in which Lessor leased to Lessee, and Lessee leased from Lessor, premises located in the City of Vista, County of San Diego, California, commonly known as 1221 Liberty Way, Vista, CA 92083, consisting of approximately 19,504 square feet ("Premises").
b.The term of the Lease expires on January 31, 2026.
c.The parties desire to amend the Base Rent Schedule to include amortization of the additional tenant improvement allowance.
2.Tenant Improvement Allowance. Lessee used its "Additional Allowance" of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) and was reimbursed for the same by Lessor. Pursuant the terms of the Lease the $50,000 additional allowance shall be amortized at 7% annual interest over the remaining term and paid monthly by Lessee as additional Base Rent (as shown in the Base Monthly Rent Schedule below).
3.Base Monthly Rent Schedule.
												
	Term	Base Rent	Additional Base Rent (Amortized TIA)
	Total Base Rent
	February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022	$	19,000.00 		$	990.00 		$	19,990.00 	
	February 1, 2022 through January 31, 2023	$	19,600.00 		$	990.00 		$	20,590.00 	
	February 1, 2023 through January 31, 2024	$	20,200.00 		$	990.00 		$	21,190.00 	
	February 1, 2024 through January 31, 2025	$	20,800.00 		$	990.00 		$	21,790.00 	
	February 1, 2025 through January 31, 2026	$	21,400.00 		$	990.00 		$	22,390.00 	


4.Effectiveness of Lease. Except as set forth in this First Amendment of Lease, all the provisions of the Lease shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.






									
	LESSOR:		LESSEE:
	Liberty Vista		Exagen Diagnostics, Inc.
	A California Limited Partnership		
	By: Hamann Property Management, Inc.		
	Authorized Agent		
			
	By: /s/ Brendan Thiessen		By: /s/ Fortunato Ron Rocca
	Brendan Thiessen - Asset Manager		Fortunato Ron Rocca, President & CEO
	Date: 1/6/2021		Date: 1/6/2021