alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

GREAT WESTERN ARCJ, LLC,

Plaintiff,

V.

MEHRAN KOHANFIEH,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:18 CV 00754

JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH

Magistrate Judge Devers

FINAL JUDMGMENT ENTRY GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT MEHRAN KOHANFIEH

Before the Court is the PlaintiliPs Motion for Default Judgment, which was filed on

September5, 2018 (Doc. 11). The Court finds the following: that the Clerk ofthis Court entered

default against Defendant Mehran Kohanfieh on September 5, 2018, and that said Defendant is

in default of answer in this case.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiffis Motion

for Default Judgment is hereby GRANTED. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Plaintiff,

and against Defendant Mehran Kohanfied, in the amount of $266,437.50, plus interest accruing

at the legal rate from August 23, 2017. This amount reflects the non-refundable Earnest Money

Deposit that Defendant was required to pay per the Purchase Agreement entered into on August

23,2017. Plaintiff is also awarded the filing fee of $400.00.

This is a final, appealable order. There is nojust reason for delay. Final judgment shall

be entered by the Clerk ofthis Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11 [T/;i.<i |{i T- ' U(>(ITED States district.JUDGE
APPROVED:

COOK, SLADOJE& WITTENBERG CO., L.P.A.

/Eric J. Wittenberg/

Eric J. Wittenberg(0038709)

250 East Broad Street

Suite 1725

Columbus, OH 43215

(614) 230-0670

Fax: (614)221-5777

eric@.cswcolpa.com

Trial Attorney for Plaintiff
Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 232-9 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: 1557

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 232-9 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: 1558
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

I, Stephen Pelletier, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Prudential Annuities Life Assurance Corporation; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 theregistrant, is made known to us by others within such entity, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’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 coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’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 financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 15, 2009
Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 284 Filed: 10/11/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 23750
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Brian Garrett, et a!.,

Plaintiffs,

V.

The Ohio State University,

Defendant.

Civil Action 2:18-cv-692

Judge Michael H. Watson

Magistrate Judge Deavers

ORDER

The Court held a status conference in this case on January 17, 2019.

Counsel for all parties appeared and participated in the conference.

As stated at the conference, this case remains at a standstiii pending

mediation and further order of the Court. It is therefore ORDERED that

Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery, ECF No. 32, and Motion to Dismiss, ECF

No. 38, continue to be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending mediation.

The parties are DIRECTED to conferand file joint recommendations by

January 31. 2019, as to the modei of the mediation and individuals who might

serve as mediators.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL H. WATSON. JUDGE

UNLTED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ELIZABETH P.^DEAVERS, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 50 Filed: 01/17/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 295
1

(h) The Chancellor shall reduce the Chancellor’s findings of fact and conclusions of law to writing

and make them parts of the record.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

June 27, 2002 Session

ROY JONES v. PERRY SPURLING, ET AL.

 Appeal from the Chancery Court for Morgan County

No. 98-145 Frank V. Williams, III, Chancellor

FILED JULY 22, 2002

No. E2001-02875-COA-R3-CV

This is a suit by Roy Jones, a tenured teacher in the Morgan County School System, against

Perry Spurling, Keith Adcock, Cassandra Duncan, Debbie Lively, and Conrad Strand, Members of

the Morgan County Board of Education, Paul Scarbrough, Superintendent of the Morgan County

Schools, and the Morgan County Board of Education. The suit seeks, by means of a writ of

certiorari, to overturn a determination of the Board that Mr. Jones’ employment should be terminated

because of an altercation between him and a student. We vacate and remand.

Tenn.R.App.P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Vacated;

Cause Remanded

HOUSTON M. GODDARD, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which CHARLES D. SUSANO,JR.,

and D. MICHAEL SWINEY, JJ., joined.

David H. Dunaway, LaFollette, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Roy Jones

Robert S. Olive, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellees, Perry Spurling, Keith Adcock, Cassandra

Duncan, Debbie Lively, and Conrad Strand, Members of the Morgan County Board of Education,

Paul Scarbrough, Superintendent of the Morgan County Schools, and the Morgan County Board of

Education.

OPINION

The Chancellor upheld Mr. Jones’ dismissal, resulting in this appeal where the determinative

issue is whether the Chancellor should have reduced his findings of fact and conclusions of law to

writing and made them a part of the record, as mandated by T.C.A. 49-5-513(h).1
-2-

The Defendants in their brief, and their counsel in oral argument, concede that there is merit

in Mr. Jones’ position and agree that the case must be remanded to give the Chancellor an

opportunity to correct his oversight. 

Mr. Jones raises a second issue, complaining that the Chancellor failed to act upon his motion

to amend his complaint. Upon remand Mr. Jones’ counsel will have an opportunity to call this point

to the Chancellor’s attention and obtain a ruling on the motion to amend.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment below is vacated and the case remanded to enable

the Chancellor to supplement the judgment entered in accordance with the requirements of T.C.A.

49-5-513(h). Exercising our discretion, we do not adjudge costs of appeal. 

_________________________________________

HOUSTON M. GODDARD, PRESIDING JUDGE
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

All the companies listed below are included in the companys
consolidated financial statements. Except as otherwise indicated below, the Company has 100% direct or indirect ownership of, and ultimate voting control in, each of these companies. The list is as of December 31, 2007 and excludes subsidiaries
which are primarily inactive or taken singly, or as a group, do not constitute significant subsidiaries:



|                                  |  |                                    |  |                  
|--------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------- |  | -----------------
|Subsidiary                        |  | State or Province of
Incorporation |  | Percentage
Owned 
|Unit Drilling Company             |  | Oklahoma                           |  | 100%             
|Unit Petroleum Company            |  | Oklahoma                           |  | 100%             
|Superior Pipeline Company, L.L.C. |  | Oklahoma                           |  | 100%             
|Unit Texas Drilling Company LLC   |  | Oklahoma                           |  | 100% (indirectly)
|Leonard Hudson Drilling Company   |  | Texas                              |  | 100% (indirectly)
United States District Court 

Southern District of Ohio 

Related Case Memorandum 

Civil Cases 

TO: Judge Watson. Judge Watson and Magistrate Judge Deavers 

FROM: _E=.d.:;;.;u;;;,.;;ar;;.;d;;;..;o;_;;Ri;.;;;·;.;;;v.:.:era;.:c_ ____ , Deputy Clerk 

DATE: 7/29/2021 

SUBJECT: Case Caption: Alonzo Shavers, et al. v. The Ohio State University 

CASE: Case Number: 2:2 l-cv-2120 ...,::;;..;=.;;.....;;..;.....;;;..;.=.;;.. ______________ _ 

DISTRICT JUDGE: Judge Watson I Magistrate Judge Deavers 

File Date: 4/28/2021 _..;.;..;;;;.;;;.;,.;;;..;;.=.;;.. __________ _ 

This memorandum is to notify you that the civil cover sheet on the above referenced case reflects 

the following alleged related case(s): 

Related Case(s): 

Case Caption: 

Case Number: 

File Date: 

Related Case(s): 

Case Caption: 

Case Number: 

File Date: 

Garrett, et al. v. The Ohio State University 

_2_:_18_-_cv_-_6_9_2 _______ District Judge: _W~ats~on;.;;.._ ___ _ 

_7.;_/...;.l..;..6/...;;.l..;;.8 _________ Magistrate Judge: _D=ea;;.;v;.;;;e.:.;:rs;...._ ___ _ 

____________ District Judge: 

____________ Magistrate Judge: 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 186 Filed: 08/24/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 1364
Memo Re: Related Civil Cases 

Page 2 

The District Judges having conferred, we respond to Case Administrator Scott Miller 

as follows: 

Judges' Response: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

We agree that the cases are not related and that the subject case should remain 

with the Judge to whom it is assigned. 

We agree that the cases are related anci Lh:i fhilsub1ect case should be 

transferred to the docket of Judge 

We agree that although the cases ~ related, the subject case nevertheless should 

remain with the Judge to whom it was assigned. 

We are unable to agree and will accept any decision made by the Chief Judge. 

I am the Judge on both/a ll of the listed cases and have determined that the cases 

are not related. 

I am the Judge on both/all of the listed cases and have determined that the cases 

arc related and they shall both/all remain on my docket. 

Other Direction of Judge: ____________________ _ 

u);4ll;/!Jbi 

United States District Judge 

United States District Judge 

Cc: Courtroom Deputies 

Re,·ised 71/ 912012 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 186 Filed: 08/24/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 1365
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION

JOSEPH D. GORSHA, et al.,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

 

BERNARD E. CLARK, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 2:18-cv-508 

 

Judge Graham 

Magistrate Judge Jolson 

OPINION AND ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Jonathan C. Clark and Clark & Clark and 

Associates, LLC’s (“Defendants Clark & Clark”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on 

Crossclaim and First Amended Crossclaim of Bernard E. Clark, Alice R. Clark, and Scott Clark 

(collectively, the “Clark Family”). (ECF No. 54.) For the reasons that follow, Defendants Clark 

& Clark’s motion is DENIED AS MOOT. 

On August 20, 2018, the Clark Family filed its crossclaim against Defendants Clark & 

Clark (ECF No. 26), alleging that because Defendants Clark & Clark prepared and recorded the 

deed at issue in this case, Defendants Clark & Clark are liable to indemnify or pay contribution to 

the Clark Family in the event Plaintiffs were entitled to recovery on their five causes of action 

against them. (Id. at 112–13.) On September 20, 2018, the Clark Family amended its crossclaim 

as to Defendant Mid Ohio Title Agency, LLC d/b/a Lanco Title Agency, but omitted its claim for 

indemnification and contribution against Defendants Clark & Clark from the amended pleading. 

(ECF No. 43.) On October 22, 2018, Defendants Clark & Clark moved to dismiss the Clark 

Family’s indemnification and contribution crossclaim against them. (ECF No. 54.) The Clark 
2 

Family opposed Defendants Clark & Clark’s motion (ECF No. 60), and Defendants Clark & Clark 

replied (ECF No. 61). The Court now reviews Defendants Clark & Clark’s motion. 

The Clark Family amended its crossclaim on September 20, 2018. When a pleading is 

amended under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), the amended pleading supersedes the 

pleading it alters. 6 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 

1476 (3d ed. 2010). Upon amending its crossclaim, the Clark Family omitted its indemnification 

and contribution claim against Defendants Clark & Clark. If a party omits a certain claim from an 

amended pleading that it previously raised in its prior pleading, the party is bound by the amended 

pleading and cannot proceed on the omitted claim, because that claim is no longer a part of the 

operative pleading. Id., citing Haddock v. Nationwide Fin. Servs. Inc., 514 F. Supp. 2d 267 (D. 

Conn. 2007). “The prior pleading is in effect withdrawn as to all matters not restated in the 

amended pleading, and becomes functus officio.” Nisbet v. Van Tuyl, 224 F.2d 66, 71 (7th Cir. 

1955). 

Therefore, as of September 20, 2018, the Clark Family was no longer proceeding on its 

indemnification and contribution crossclaim against Defendants Clark & Clark. As such, 

Defendants Clark & Clark’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 54) is hereby 

DENIED AS MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ James L. Graham 

 JAMES L. GRAHAM 

 United States District Judge 

DATE: October 8, 2019
EXHIBIT 10.19

ACKNOWLEDGMENT, CONSENTAND REAFFIRMATION OF GUARANTOR OF LEASE

THIS ACKNOWLEDGMENT, CONSENT AND REAFFIRMATION OF GUARANTOR OF LEASE (the Consent), is made this 14thday of July, 2006, by PREMIERE GLOBAL SERVICES, INC. (Guarantor), to and for the
benefit of 3280 PEACHTREE I LLC (Landlord).

W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, Guarantor did duly execute and deliver that certain Guaranty of Lease (the Original Guaranty), on October 28, 2005, in connection with and as a material inducement for that certain Lease Agreement,
as may have been amended previously (the Original Lease), involving Landlord and Xpedite Systems, LLC d/b/a Premiere Global Services (Tenant).

WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant have entered into an amendment to the Original Lease (the Lease Amendment), dated July 14, 2006 subject to and conditioned upon the execution and delivery of this Consent.

WHEREAS, Landlord would not have entered into or agreed to the Lease Amendment, were it not for the execution and delivery of this Consent to Landlord, which Consent was a material inducement to Landlord to enter into
the Lease Amendment.

WHEREAS, Guarantor, which will derive material and substantial benefit from the Lease Amendment, desires to provide this Consent, in connection with the Lease Amendment.

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and for Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, paid by the parties hereto to one another, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged by the parties hereto, the parties hereto hereby covenant and agree as follows:

1. Amendment to Lease. Guarantor hereby acknowledges and consents to the fact that the Original Lease has been modified and amended by virtue of the Lease Amendment.

2. No Modification. The granting of this Consent by Guarantor to Landlord and Tenant in no way modifies or amends the Guaranty or any Guarantors obligations and duties under the Guaranty. Said Guaranty is
and shall remain in full force and effect and is a valid and continuing obligation of Guarantor according to its terms.

---

3. Warranties and Representations. The warranties and representations made by Guarantor in the Guaranty are made and ratified as of the date hereof with respect to this Consent.

4. No Further Consent Required. The request made by Landlord herein and the giving of this Consent by Guarantor shall in no way be or be deemed to be a waiver of Landlords rights under the Guaranty.

5. Binding Nature. This Consent shall inure to the benefit of Landlord, Tenant and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns.

6. Georgia Law. This Consent has been given, and shall be construed under, the laws of the State of Georgia.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Consent to be executed under seal and delivered on the day and year first above written.

| | Guarantor                   
| | ------------------------------
| |                               
| | PREMIERE GLOBAL SERVICES, INC.
| |                               
| | By:                           
| | Its:                          

---
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

HENRY MORTELLARO

VERSUS

OLD REPUBLIC UNION INSURANCE

COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE

SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

CHRISTOPHER CAMPEAUX, 

ANYTIME HOTSHOT, L. L. C. AND

ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND

CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

NO. 2022 CW 0139

MAY 05, 2022

In Re: Anytime Hotshot & Delivery, LLC and Old Republic Union

Insurance Company, applying for supervisory writs, 

19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton

Rouge, No. 700655. 

BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. The criteria set forth in Herlitz

Construction Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 

396 So. 2d 878 ( La. 1981) ( per curiam) are not met. 

JMG

WRC

Holdridge, J., concurs. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

MELISSA MCFADDEN,

Plaintiff,

V.

CaseNo. 2:I8-cv-544

JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

CITY OF COLUMBUS,

Defendant.

VERDICT FORM NO. 1

Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant City of Columbus racially

discriminated against Plaintiff Lt. Melissa McFadden in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, Ohio Revised Code § 4112, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983?

x Yes

-orNo

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 104 Filed: 06/13/22 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 5739
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTMCT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

MELISSA MCFADDEN,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:18-cv-544

JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

CITY OF COLUMBUS,

Defendant.

VERDICT FORM NO. 2

Only complete this form if you answered "Yes" to Verdict Form No. 1.

The amount of compensatory damages to which Lt. McFadden is entitled for her race

d~"nd""te . I

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 104 Filed: 06/13/22 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 5740
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

MELISSA MCFADDEN,

Plaintiff,

V.

CaseNo. 2:18-cv-544

JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

CITY OF COLUMBUS,

Defendant.

VERDICT FORM NO. 3

Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant City of Columbus retaliated against

Plaintiff Lt. Melissa McFadden in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Ohio

Revised Code §4112, and 42 U. S.C. § I983?

x Yes

- orNo

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 104 Filed: 06/13/22 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 5741
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTMCT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

MELISSA MCFADDEN,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:18-cv-544

JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

CITY OF COLUMBUS,

Defendant.

VERDICT FORM NO. 4

Only complete this form if you answered "Yes" to Verdict Fonn No. 3.

The amount of compensatory damages to which Lt. McFadden is entitled for her retaliation claim

IS:

$

Signed:

/s fA ///.Z /-? ^.5">

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 104 Filed: 06/13/22 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 5742
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-7 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 1 of 18
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-7 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 2 of 18
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-7 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 3 of 18
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-7 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 4 of 18
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-7 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 5 of 18
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-7 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 6 of 18
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-7 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 7 of 18
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-7 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 8 of 18
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-7 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 9 of 18
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-7 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 10 of 18
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-7 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 11 of 18
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-7 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 12 of 18
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-7 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 13 of 18
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-7 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 14 of 18
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-7 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 15 of 18
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-7 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 16 of 18
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-7 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 17 of 18
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 123-7 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 18 of 18