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

----

|                                            | PhotoMedex, Inc. |                                                                                                                                                                             |
|-------------------------------------------------|------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                            |             |                                                                                                                                                                             |   |
| Date:  November 15, 2010    | By:              | /s/ Dennis M. McGrath                          |   |
|                                            |             | Name:  Dennis M. McGrath                                                                                                                                                    |   |
|                                            |             | Title:    Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                 |   |
|                                            |             |                                                                                                                                                                             |   |

----

----
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3654-3655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1170]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Lodging of Consent Decree in United States v. Ford Motor Company, 
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act

    Notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in United 
States v. Ford Motor Company, Civil Action No. 94CV-40501, was lodged 
with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Michigan, Flint Office on December 29, 1994. This action was brought 
pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
Liability Act (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601, et seq. to recover 
costs expended by the United States in connection with the 
``Spiegelberg Superfund Site,'' (See the National Priorities List in 40 
CFR Part 300, Appendix B) which is located on Spicer Road, in Green Oak 
Township, Livingston County, Michigan. Under the proposed decree, Ford 
has agreed to pay $935,000 in partial reimbursement of past response 
costs incurred by the United States in connection with the Spiegelberg 
Site.
    The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree for a period of 30 days from the date of this 
publication. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney 
General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department 
of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530. All comments should refer to United 
States v. Ford Motor Company. DJ Ref. #90-11-2-285A.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Office of the 
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, Flint 
Office, 600 Church Street, room 206 Federal Building, Flint, 
[[Page 3655]] Michigan 48502; the Region V Office of the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Street, Seventh Floor, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604; and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G 
Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005 (202) 624-0892. A copy of 
the proposed consent decree may be obtained in person or by mail from 
the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, 
DC 20005. In requesting a copy, please refer to the referenced case and 
enclose a check in the amount of $4.25 (twenty-five cents per page 
reproduction costs) payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Bruce S. Gelber,
Acting Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environmental and 
Natural Resources Divisions.
[FR Doc. 95-1170 Filed 1-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 1 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 2 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 3 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 4 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 5 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 6 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 7 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 8 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 9 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 10 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 11 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 12 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 13 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 14 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 15 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 16 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 17 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 18 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 19 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 20 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 21 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 22 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 23 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 24 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 25 of 26

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 78   filed 07/31/14   page 26 of 26
Keith BUTTS, Superintendent, Pendleton Correctional Facility, petitioner, v. Virgil HALL, III.

No. 12-813.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1542

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

695 Pleasant Street in New Bedford, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Honorable 

Judge George N. Leighton Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 12, 2005

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. OLVER, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. MCGOVERN, 

Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. CAPUANO, and Mr. LYNCH) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 695 Pleasant Street in New Bedford, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Honorable Judge George N. Leighton 

Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. HONORABLE JUDGE GEORGE N. LEIGHTON 

4 POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 695 Pleasant Street in New Bed7 ford, Massachusetts, shall be known and designated as the 
2

•HR 1542 IH 

1 ‘‘Honorable Judge George N. Leighton Post Office Build2 ing’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Honorable Judge 

7 George N. Leighton Post Office Building’’.

Æ
Andrew Isaac CHANCE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9424.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Gerard John GALLO, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 12-8889.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, denied.
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: BIOMET M2A MAGNUM HIP IMPLANT

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2391

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO −36)

On October 2, 2012, the Panel transferred 8 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Indiana for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1407. See 896 F.Supp.2d 1339 (J.P.M.L. 2012). Since that time, 199 additional action(s)

have been transferred to the Northern District of Indiana. With the consent of that court, all such

actions have been assigned to the Honorable Robert L Miller, Jr.

It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are

common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of Indiana and assigned to

Judge Miller.

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. §1407 to the

Northern District of Indiana for the reasons stated in the order of October 2, 2012, and, with the

consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Robert L Miller, Jr.

This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be

stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the

Panel within this 7−day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

FOR THE PANEL:

 Jeffery N. Lüthi

Clerk of the Panel

case 3:13-cv-00416-RLM-CAN document 3 filed 05/15/13 page 1 of 2
IN RE: BIOMET M2A MAGNUM HIP IMPLANT

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2391

SCHEDULE CTO−36 − TAG−ALONG ACTIONS

DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION

FLORIDA MIDDLE

FLM 8 13−01100 Lane v. Biomet, Inc. et al

GEORGIA SOUTHERN

GAS 1 13−00068 Shiver et al v. Biomet, Inc. et al

NEW JERSEY

NJ 3 13−01015 MUDIRAJ v. BIOMET, INC. et al

OHIO SOUTHERN

OHS 2 13−00397 Machesney v. Biomet, Inc. et al

SOUTH CAROLINA

SC 3 13−01190 Kuhns v. Biomet Inc et al

case 3:13-cv-00416-RLM-CAN document 3 filed 05/15/13 page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12058]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project No. 11417-001 Alaska]


David Ausman and Associates; Notice of Surrender of Preliminary 
Permit

May 11, 1995.
    Take notice that David Ausman and Associates, Permittee for the 
Snyder Falls Creek Project No. 11417, has requested that its 
preliminary permit be terminated. The preliminary permit for Project 
No. 11417 was issued December 28, 1993, and would have expired November 
30, 1996. The project would have been located on Snyder Falls Creek, 
near Cordova, Alaska.
    The Permittee filed the request on May 3, 1995, and the preliminary 
permit for Project No. 11417 shall remain in effect through the 
thirtieth day after issuance of this notice unless that day is a 
Saturday, Sunday or holiday as described in 18 CFR 385.2007, in which 
case the permit shall remain in effect through the first business day 
following that day. New applications involving this project site, to 
the extent provided for under 18 CFR Part 4, may be filed on the next 
business day.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-12058 Filed 5-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12187]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[File No. 1-11254]


Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application to Withdraw From Listing 
and Registration; (Vermont Pure Holdings, Ltd., Common Stock, $.001 Par 
Value)

May 12, 1995.
    Vermont Pure Holdings, Ltd. (``Company'') has filed an application 
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant 
to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') and 
Rule 12d2-2(d) promulgated thereunder, to withdraw the above specified 
security (``Security'') from listing and registration on the Boston 
Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'').
    The reasons alleged in the application for withdrawing this 
Security from listing and registration on the Boston Stock Exchange, 
Inc. (``BSE'').
    The reasons alleged in the application for withdrawing this 
Security from listing and registration include the following:
    According to the Company, the Company originally decided to list 
the Security on the BSE in connection with the initial public offering 
by the Company of the Security. The decision to list on the BSE at that 
time was based on the Company's desire to expedite the formation of an 
active public market for the Security. However, the Board of Directors 
has determined that the Company should now withdraw its Security from 
listing on the BSE. This decision is based on the limited and sporadic 
trading activity of the Security on the BSE since the date the Security 
was first listed. The Company's primary trading market has been and 
continues to be the Nasdaq SmallCap Market. The Company believes that 
the benefits of remaining listed on the BSE do not outweigh the costs 
involved in maintaining such listing, since the Nasdaq SmallCap Market 
represents the primary trading market for the Security.
    Any interested person may, on or before June 5, 1995 submit by 
letter to the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 
Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549, facts bearing upon whether 
the application has been made in accordance with the rules of the 
exchange and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission 
for the protection of investors. The Commission, based on the 
information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the 
application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission 
determines to order a hearing on the matter.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-12187 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Jose Israel GOMEZ-ORTIZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6766.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Joseph M. WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. CITY OF NATCHITOCHES, LOUISIANA, et al.

No. 12-7832.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Nick LYNCH, petitioner, v. Adam BARRETT, et al.

No. 12-9207.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

MICHELE LITVAK AND

PAUL LITVAK,

PLAINTIFFS,

VS.

BIOMET, INC., BIOMET U.S.

RECONSTRUCTION, LLC, AND

BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS, LLC,

DEFENDANTS.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-75-RLM

OPINION and ORDER

The court has the obligation to inquire into its own subject matter

jurisdiction. Craig v. Ontario Corp., 543 F.3d 872, 875 (7th Cir. 2008); Thomas

v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2007). The plaintiffs’ complaint

does not properly allege the existence of diversity jurisdiction. The complaint

alleges that plaintiffs Michele Litvak and Paul Litvak are residents of the state

of Maryland, but the plaintiffs must show the citizenship of each party as of the

date the complaint was filed. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d at 534;

Dausch v. Rykse, 9 F.3d 1244, 1245 (7th Cir. 1993). For purposes of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332, “citizenship” depends on domicile –“the state in which a person intends

to live over the long run”– not residence. Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp.,

671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. Feb. 7, 2012).

Although the case may be subject to dismissal on this ground, Thomas v.

Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d at 534, the court instead affords the plaintiffs
twenty days from the date of this order within which to file an amended

complaint alleging the existence of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

1332.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: February 8, 2013

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court

-2-
ADDENDUM DATED OCTOBER 31, 2003 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (SHANNON)



 EXHBIT 10.22 
  
  
  
 

 
  
 Interoffice Memorandum

  

			
	To:	  	Personnel File
	From:	  	 Timothy M. Shannon, Senior VP of R&D and CMO

	Date:	  	 October 31, 2003

	Re:	  	 Addendum to Employment Agreement


  

  
 I, Timothy M. Shannon, (“the Executive”) signed an Employment Agreement (“the Agreement”) with my employer, CuraGen
Corporation (“the Company”), on or about October 24, 2002. The Agreement provides that it shall be renewed on an annual basis unless either the Company or the Executive notifies the other party of his/her/its intent not to renew the
Agreement on or before October 31 (Section 2A. Term). 
  
 The Executive and the
Company have agreed to modify the terms of that Agreement as follows: 
  

	 	1.	 	(Section 2 Term.) 

  
 There shall be no one year term of employment and either the Executive or CuraGen may terminate employment with or without cause and with or without
notice. 
  

	 	2.	 	(Section 6. Disability or Death) 

  
 The Agreement provides that the Company may terminate the Agreement upon the Executive’s death or disability. 
  

	 	3.	 	(Section 10. Termination) 

  
 The Agreement provides that CuraGen may terminate the Agreement for performance reasons or for cause. 
  

	 	4.	 	(Section 10E and Section 12A. Benefits Upon Termination) 

  
 If the Company terminates the Executive’s employment because of performance reasons (as defined in Agreement), disability or death, or without cause,
the Executive or his/her estate shall receive benefits. The benefits are: (i) salary continuation at the salary the Executive was receiving at the time of termination; and (ii) the Executive’s continued participation (or in the case of death
the Executive’s family’s continued participation) in any employee health and welfare benefit to which the Executive was a participant prior to his termination on the same basis as the Executive had participated as an employee. The salary
continuation and continued participation in any health and welfare benefit plan shall be for twelve months from the date of termination of the Executive’s employment. Other than under Section 12 in the event of a Change of Control, the
Executive shall not be entitled to more than twelve (12) months of salary continuation and continued participation in any health or welfare benefit plan if the Executive’s employment is terminated for (1) performance reasons; (2) death; (3)
disability; or (4) without cause. 
  
 Unless explicitly changed in this Addendum,
all other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

	
	
	/s/    Timothy M. Shannon
	

	Timothy M. Shannon


	
	
	/s/    Jonathan M. Rothberg
	

	Jonathan M. Rothberg
EXHIBIT A

   

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 187 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 187 Filed 04/07/17 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 187 Filed 04/07/17 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 187 Filed 04/07/17 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 187 Filed 04/07/17 Page 5 of 5
David Charles BRITT, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-7667.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.
EXHIBIT 7 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 278-8 Filed 10/04/18 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CHRISTINA GRACE and KEN POTTER, )

Individually and on Behalf of All Others, )

Similarly Situated, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Case No. 5:17-cv-00551-LHK

)

APPLE, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

Expert Report of Professor Justine S. Hastings, Ph.D.

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 278-8 Filed 10/04/18 Page 2 of 5
14

I understand from the document that the customer ultimately decided not to upgrade his or her 

iPhone 4 device to iOS 7 and instead purchased a new device. 37

III. COMMON IMPACT

23. A central premise in economic theory is that people act to maximize their expected 

utility.38 Standard economic theory of consumer choice states that individuals prefer products that 

work fully to those that do not, all else equal. Similarly, consumers prefer products with higher 

residual value or resale value, all else equal. Using these fundamental economic principles and 

basic industry facts about FaceTime and demand and supply for smart phones, an economist would 

expect market prices for used smart phones to adjust to reflect any impact on consumer willingness 

to pay for affected iPhone models. Loss in the market value of the asset they own – namely their 

iPhone – as a result of the Break is a way in which Class Members would commonly experience 

harm.39

IV. DAMAGES MODEL AND RESULTS

24. I use data on the market value of used phones from the competitive market for used 

phone sales and multivariate regression analysis to measure the diminution in value to iPhone 4 

and iPhone 4S devices caused by the Break. I use this diminution in value along with the market 

 37 APL-GRACE-CCLOG00028286.

38 See, e.g., Bernheim, B. and Whinston, M. (2008), Microeconomics, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin, chapters 

4 and 5.

39 Harm would also accrue from the loss of valued services and/or functionality, and/or the lost option value for use 

of valued service and/or feature. Calculating damages from diminution in value is conservative as it focuses on one, 

common, source of harm incurred – the loss in market value of an asset – which is measureable using facts, 

evidence, and methodologies common to the class and of the type typically relied upon by economists for estimating 

damages. 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 278-8 Filed 10/04/18 Page 3 of 5
Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 278-8 Filed 10/04/18 Page 4 of 5
Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 278-8 Filed 10/04/18 Page 5 of 5