alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.1



SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT



U.S. Bank Trust National Association



The undersigned, a duly authorized officer
of U.S. Bank Trust National Association (the “Trustee”), as Trustee in respect of the STRATS Trust for AMBAC Financial
Group, Inc. Securities, Series 2007-1 (the “Trust”), does hereby certify that:



| | 1. | The Bank is Trustee under the Trust Agreement.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Trust Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the
Trust.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. | A review of the Trustee’s activities during the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2014 and of its performance under
the Trust Agreement has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 5. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Trust Agreement
in all material respects throughout such twelve-month period.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
duly executed this Certificate this 31st day of March 2015.



|       |                  | 
|------ | ---------------- | 
|By:    | /s/ David Duclos | 
|Name:  | David Duclos     | 
|Title: | Vice President   |
Calvin SIMS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9503.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2004 of Universal American Financial Corp. (the "Company"), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of operations of the
Company.

Date:  August 9, 2004

                                                      /s/ Richard A. Barasch
                                                      ------------------------
                                                      Richard A. Barasch
                                                      Chief Executive Officer

                                       61
Manuel ORTIZ, petitioner, v. Burl CAIN, Warden.

No. 12-1129.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:12-CV-27

)

KURT A. SUTTON, TOMMY E. )

SUTTON, and STEVEN L. MCATEE, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

On November 30, 2012, a status conference in this matter was held and concluded. 

(Docket # 21.) The case was originally brought by the United States of America against

Defendants Kurt Sutton, Tommy Sutton, and Steven McAtee for their alleged trespass on and

damage to federal property, but those claims have been dismissed.1 (Docket # 19.) As such, all

that remains are the various cross-claims of the Suttons against McAtee and McAtee against the

Suttons. But all of these claims are state law claims, over which the Court lacks an independent

basis of jurisdiction as all the Defendants are Indiana citizens and the amount of controversy

falls well below $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (setting forth the requirements for exercising

diversity jurisdiction). 

And these state law claims may not be “related to” the claims of the United States, now

dismissed, such “that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the

United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Federal and state law claims are considered

1

 The Court originally had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345. 

1
part of the same case or controversy if they derive from a “common nucleus of operative facts.” 

Villareal v. El Chile, Inc., 601 F. Supp. 2d 1011, 1018 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (citing City of Chicago v.

Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 164-65 (1997)); accord Sanchez & Daniels v. Koresko,

503 F.3d 610, 614 (7th Cir. 2007). 

Consequently, the question arises whether this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over

the remaining cross-claims, and, if so, whether it should decline to exercise that jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Accordingly, counsel may file briefs arguing that the Court has

supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of this case and that, under the factors listed in 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c), it should exercise that jurisdiction.2

 Any such briefs are to be filed on or

before December 21, 2012. 

SO ORDERED.

Entered this 30th day of November, 2012.

/S/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2

 If the case is ultimately dismissed for either lack of jurisdiction or because the Court declined to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction, Indiana’s Journey Account State, Ind. Code § 34-11-8-1, is potentially applicable to toll

the statute of limitations that may affect the ability of the Suttons or McAtee to refile their claims in state court. See

Dempsey v. Belanger, 959 N.E.2d 861, 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (stating that the Journey’s Account Statute

“provides for continuation when a plaintiff fails to obtain a decision on the merits for some reason other than his own

neglect and the statute of limitations expires while his suit is pending”). 

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

DAVID FROHWERK, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. ) Case No. 3:13-CV-084 JD

)

OFFICER KIMECH, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This case was removed from the LaPorte Circuit Court by the defendants, Officer Kimech

and Officer Carr. After examining the complaint, the court questioned whether it had jurisdiction.

Because a district court has the obligation to inquire into its own subject matter jurisdiction, the

defendants were ordered to explain how this court had jurisdiction. See Thomas v. Guardsmark,

LLC, 487 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2007). 

In response, the defendants assert that this court has federal question jurisdiction. “While

Plaintiff does not specifically state the legal basis of his claims, Plaintiff is calling for the protections

of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution by the language used in his Complaint.”

ECF 8 at ¶ 3. They argue that the “language clearly is invoking the protection of the Eighth

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and is inartfully stating a deliberate indifference to a serious

medical need claim.” Id. at ¶ 6. On the other hand, the plaintiff has filed an objection to the removal.

ECF 9 at 16-18. He states that his claims have “been brought pursuant to the common laws of the

State, and its Constitution . . ..” ECF 9 at 17. He agues that he “has not asked if the acts and

omissions violated his U.S. Constitutional rights.” Id. As such, he has explicitly disavowed asserting

a federal claim in this case. 
“[T]he plaintiff may, by eschewing claims based on federal law, choose to have the cause

heard in state court.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 399 (1987). That is what has

happened here. Frohwerk has eschewed the existence of a federal claim in this case. In Katz v.

Gerardi, 552 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2009), it was necessary for the court to hold a hearing to resolve the

complicated state and federal securities law interrelationships involved in that case. However, no

hearing is necessary here because the issues are straightforward and Frohwerk has unambiguously

denied asserting any federal claims. Frohwerk correctly notes that his tort claims arise independently

under State law. Though, as the defendants correctly note, he could have also asserted federal

claims, “the plaintiff as master of the complaint may present (or abjure) any claim he likes.” Id. at

563. Because Frohwerk has abjured any federal claims, this court does not have federal question

jurisdiction and this case must be remanded back to State Court.

For the foregoing reasons, this case is REMANDED to the LaPorte Circuit Court.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: March 21, 2013 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court

2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00939-WHA (JSC) 

Kevin K. Chang (SBN 300371) 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

555 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 439-1400 

Facsimile: (415) 439-1500 

Email: kevin.chang@kirkland.com 

Robert B. Ellis, P.C. (pro hac vice forthcoming)

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

300 North LaSalle 

Chicago, Illinois 60654 

Tel: (312) 862-2000 

Fax: (312) 862-2200 

Email: robert.ellis@kirkland.com 

Attorneys for 

Stroz Friedberg, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; OTTOMOTTO 

LLC; OTTO TRUCKING LLC, 

Defendants. 

 CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-00939-WHA (JSC) 

STROZ FRIEDBERG, LLC’S RULE 7.1 

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

Magistrate Judge: Jacqueline Scott Corley 

Courtroom: F - 15th Floor 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 613 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 1 CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00939-WHA (JSC) 

TO THE COURT CLERK AND ALL PARTIES OF RECORD: 

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nonparty Stroz Friedberg, LLC 

states the following: 

1. Stroz Friedberg Inc. is the single member of Stroz Friedberg, LLC. 

2. Aon Corporation is the parent corporation of Stroz Friedberg Inc. 

3. No other publicly held corporation owns more than 10% of Stroz Friedberg Inc. stock. 

DATED: June 13, 2017 /s/ Kevin K. Chang 

Kevin K. Chang (SBN 300371) 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

555 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 439-1400 

Facsimile: (415) 439-1500 

Email: kevin.chang@kirkland.com 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 613 Filed 06/13/17 Page 2 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00939-WHA (JSC) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

On June 13, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the 

CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to all persons registered for ECF. All 

copies of documents required to be served by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a) and L.R. 5-1 have been so served. 

/s/ Kevin K. Chang 

Kevin K. Chang (SBN 300371) 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

555 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 439-1400 

Facsimile: (415) 439-1500 

Email: kevin.chang@kirkland.com 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 613 Filed 06/13/17 Page 3 of 3
Ralph A. FLOWERS, III, petitioner, v. Steven RICH, et al.

No. 12-8893.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 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 Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Maxtor Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 27, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Duston M. Williams, Executive Vice
President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906),
that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Duston M. WilliamsDuston M. WilliamsExecutive Vice President, Finance
and Chief Financial Officer Date: May 12, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

NANCY ISLAS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING 

PHARMACY INC. aka NEW ENGLAND 

COMPOUNDING CENTER, et al. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00845-WCL-CAN

JUDGE WILLIAM C. LEE 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

Please take notice that Knight S. Anderson of Tucker Ellis LLP hereby enters his 

appearance for Defendant Ameridose, LLC. Please note on the Docket and direct all future 

communications, pleadings, and court notices to the undersigned counsel. 

Dated this 21st day of February, 2013 

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Knight S. Anderson 

Knight S. Anderson (17216-53) 

Tucker Ellis LLP 

925 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1150 

Cleveland, OH 44115-1414 

Tel: 216.592.5000 

Fax: 216.592.5009 

E-mail: knight.anderson@tuckerellis.com 

Attorney for Defendant Ameridose LLC

case 3:12-cv-00845-WCL-CAN document 21 filed 02/21/13 page 1 of 2
2 

013260.000013/1592901.1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on February 21, 2013 using the ECF system that sent notification of this filing to all ECFregistered counsel of record via e-mail generated by the Court’s ECF system. 

 /s/Knight S. Anderson 

Attorney for Defendant Ameridose, LLC 

case 3:12-cv-00845-WCL-CAN document 21 filed 02/21/13 page 2 of 2
Hindi/English
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 10.32


                     SCHEDULE OF RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENTS
                         TYPE B (NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS)


The following have executed Restricted Stock Agreements substantially in the
form of the agreement attached as Exhibit 10.31 (the "Exhibit") to the Valero
Energy Corporation Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

E. Glenn Biggs
W.E. Bradford
Ronald K. Calgaard
Ruben M. Escobedo
Bob Marbut
Susan Kaufman Purcell

The following information sets forth the material details in which the
Restricted Stock Agreements described in this Schedule differ from the Exhibit.

<Table>
<Caption>
         name                 grant date          number of shares            vesting
------------------------ ---------------------- ---------------------- -----------------------
<S>                      <C>                    <C>                    <C>
         Biggs                12-31-2001                1,170               1/3 annually
       Bradford               12-31-2001                1,170               1/3 annually
       Calgaard               05-09-2002                1,095               1/3 annually
       Escobedo               05-10-2001                 918                1/3 annually
        Marbut                12-31-2001                1,170               1/3 annually
        Purcell               05-09-2002                1,095               1/3 annually
        Purcell               06-05-2003                 396              100% in 3 years
</Table>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

KRISTI OBLINGER and WAYNE 

OBLINGER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING 

PHARMACY, INC. d/b/a NEW 

ENGLAND COMPOUNDING CENTER, 

BARRY AND LISA CADDEN, and 

GREGORY CONIGLIARO,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:12-CV-820-RL-CAN

APPEARANCE BY ATTORNEY IN CIVIL CASE

To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record:

Please enter my appearance as counsel in this case for Defendants Barry and Lisa 

Cadden, and Greg Conigliaro.

I certify that I am admitted to practice in this Court.

LEWIS WAGNER LLP

By: /s/ Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo

DINA M. COX, #18590-49

KAMEELAH SHAHEED-DIALLO, #28058-49

ROBERT M. BAKER IV, #25471-49

JANELLE M. KILIES, #30708-49

Attorneys for Defendants 

case 3:12-cv-00820-RL-CAN document 9 filed 02/14/13 page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on February 14, 2013 using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of this filing to the 

following: 

Douglas D. Small

Edmond W. Foley

FOLEY & SMALL

1002 E Jefferson Blvd

South Bend IN 46617

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

/s/ Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo

KAMEELAH SHAHEED-DIALLO

LEWIS WAGNER, LLP

501 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200

Indianapolis, IN 46202

Phone: (317) 237-0500

FAX: (317) 630-2790

kshaheed-diallo@lewiswagner.com

Q:\NECC\25 - Oblinger\Federal Pleadings\appear_ksd_Cadden & Conigliaro.docx

case 3:12-cv-00820-RL-CAN document 9 filed 02/14/13 page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William Kinjo SMITH, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-7509.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 19, 2004.

Decided May 13, 2004.

William Kinjo Smith, Appellant pro se. G. David Hackney, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON; Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

William Kinjo Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is appealable only if a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel, 529*U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con*891tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
[Countrywide Logo]****400 Countrywide Way February 29, 2008Simi Valley, California 93065-6298U.S. Bank, N.A. Attn: Marcia Johnson 2121 Cliff Drive, Suite 205 Eagan, MN 55122OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE I, Joseph Candelario, hereby certify that I am an officer of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP (the "Servicer"). I further certify, with respect to the applicable servicing agreement relating to the securitization transaction(s) set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Servicing Agreement") that: (a)A review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding calendar year and  of the performance of the Servicer under the Servicing Agreement has been made under  my supervision; and (b)To the best of my knowledge, based on suc h review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such year, /s/ Joseph Candelario  February 28, 2008 Joseph Candelario First Vice President Compliance Officer Loan Administration **Exhibit A - Securitized Transaction(s)****U.S. Bank, N.A. 2121 Cliff Drive, Suite 205**ARMT  2007-1  ARMT  2007-3  BAFC  2007-1  BAFC  2007-3  BAFC  2007-4  BAFC  2007-7  BAFC   2007-A  BAFC   2007-B  BAFC   2007-C  CMLTI  2007-10  CMLTI 2007-6  CMLTI 2007-AHL2 CMLTI 2007-AHL3 CMLTI 2007-AMC1 CMLTI 2007-AMC2 CMLTI 2007-AR1  CMLTI 2007-AR4  CMLTI 2007-AR7  CMLTI 2007-AR8  CSAB  2007-1 CSAB  2007-2  CSARMT 2007-1  CSARMT 2007-2  CSARMT 2007-3  CSMC 2007-1  CSMC 2007-2  CSMC 2007-3 **Exhibit A - Securitized Transaction(s )****U.S. Bank, N.A. - 2121 Cliff Drive, Suite 205** CSMC 2007-4  CSMC 2007-5  CSMC 2007-6  CSMC 2007-7  DBALT 2007-2  GSAA 2007-1  GSAA 2007-3  GSR 2007-4F  GSR 2007-5F  JPALT 2007-A1  JPALT 2007-A1  JPALT 2007-A2  JPALT 2007-S1  JPMMT 2007-A2  JPMMT 2007-A2  JPMMT 2007-A3  JPMMT 2007-A4  JPMMT 2007-A5  JPMMT 2007-A5  JPMMT 2007-S1  JPMMT 2007-S2  JPMMT 2007-S3  LXS 2007-12N  LXS 2007-15N  LXS 2007-16N  LXS 2007-18N  LXS 2007-20N **Exhibit A - Securitized Transaction(s) U.S.****Bank, N.A. - 2121 Cliff Drive, Suite 205**LXS 2007-2N  LXS 2007-4N  LXS 2007-7N  MALT 2007-1  MARM 2007-2  MARM 2007-3  MASTR 2007-1  PRIME 2007-3  SASCO 2007-BC4
음식을 제대로 식혀서 질병을 예방하고 일자리를 지키십시오. 

어디서든 사람의 건강을 보호하십시오음식을 올바르게 식히십시오.

.

식중독 발생 원인

죄송합니다

폐업 중입니다

. 

.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

KRISTI OBLINGER and WAYNE 

OBLINGER, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING 

PHARMACY, INC. d/b/a NEW 

ENGLAND COMPOUNDING CENTER, 

BARRY AND LISA CADDEN, and 

GREGORY CONIGLIARO, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:12-CV-820-RL-CAN 

NOTICE OF STAY BY REASON OF BANKRUPTCY

 The defendant, New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. d/b/a New England 

Compounding Center (“NECC”), hereby notifies the Court that NECC filed a voluntary petition 

under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts (Eastern Division) No. 12-19882-HJB. 

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), all actions against NECC are stayed. 

LEWIS WAGNER LLP 

By: /s/ Dina M. Cox 

DINA M. COX, #18590-49 

KAMEELAH SHAHEED-DIALLO, #28058-49 

ROBERT M. BAKER IV, #25471-49 

 Attorneys for Defendant, New England 

Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. 

 

case 3:12-cv-00820-RL-CAN document 8 filed 12/27/12 page 1 of 2
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on December 27, 2012 using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of this filing to the 

following: 

Douglas D. Small 

Edmond W. Foley 

FOLEY & SMALL 

1002 E Jefferson Blvd 

South Bend IN 46617 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

/s/ Dina M. Cox

 DINA M. COX 

LEWIS WAGNER, LLP 

501 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200 

Indianapolis, IN 46202 

Phone: (317) 237-0500 

FAX: (317) 630-2790 

dcox@lewiswagner.com Q:\NECC\25 - Oblinger\Federal Pleadings\Notice of Stay_Bankruptcy.docx

case 3:12-cv-00820-RL-CAN document 8 filed 12/27/12 page 2 of 2