alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LAURENCE FAULKS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15425 

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-02871-MEJ 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Maria-Elena James, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 12, 2018

San Francisco, California

Before: SILER,** PAEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Laurence Faulks appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment in 

favor of Wells Fargo. After numerous unsuccessful attempts to obtain a loan 

modification from Wells Fargo, Faulks filed suit, alleging promissory estoppel, 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUN 28 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

intentional and negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and intentional infliction 

of emotional distress claims. 

Because Faulks failed to show that he acted in justifiable and reasonable 

detrimental reliance upon any promise by Wells Fargo, the district court properly 

granted summary judgment to Wells Fargo on Faulks’s promissory estoppel claim. 

See Sateriale v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 697 F.3d 777, 792 (9th Cir. 2012). 

Similarly, Faulks’s failure to put forward evidence creating a genuine issue of 

material fact as to reliance proves fatal to his intentional and negligent 

misrepresentation claims. See Lazar v. Superior Court, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 377, 380–

381 (1996). 

Faulks’s negligence claim also fails. First, Faulks has failed to demonstrate 

a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his application for a loan 

modification was in active review at the time Wells Fargo foreclosed on his house. 

Second, even assuming lenders have a duty of care within the context of loan

modifications, see Alvarez v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 176 Cal. Rptr. 3d 

304, 310 (Ct. App. 2014), Faulks has not presented any evidence showing that, at 

the time foreclosure proceedings commenced, Wells Fargo was engaged in the sort 

of loan modification negotiations that would give rise to such a duty. 

Last, because Faulks has not presented any evidence that Wells Fargo’s 

actions exceeded all bounds of decency in a civilized society, the district court 
3

correctly granted summary judgment to Wells Fargo on Faulks’s intentional 

infliction of emotional distress claim. Cf. Ragland v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 147 

Cal. Rptr. 3d 41, 59–60 (Ct. App. 2012). 

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6237

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PERCY JAMES TUCKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (2:09-cr-00182-AWA-DEM-1)

Submitted: June 30, 2015 Decided: July 8, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Percy James Tucker, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Percy James Tucker appeals the district court’s order 

denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial1 and his 

motion for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1) (2012). We 

affirm. 

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion by denying the recusal motion because the district 

court’s judicial determinations in Tucker’s criminal case, on 

which Tucker’s challenge to the denial is based, do not provide 

a basis for recusal. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 545 

(1994); Kolon Indus. Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 748 

F.3d 160, 167 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 437 (2014); 

Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011). We also 

conclude that Tucker has forfeited appellate review of the 

ground raised in his informal brief challenging the denial of 

his Rule 33 motion for a new trial because he otherwise failed 

to address the district court’s bases for denying relief. See

4th Cir. R. 34(b).

 1 Tucker also appeals the denial of his motion for release 

from custody and an amendment to the motion for release from 

custody, both of which were based on his Rule 33 motion for a 

new trial.
3

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.2 We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 2 We grant Tucker’s motion to file the supplemental informal 

brief he has submitted. To the extent the motion and the 

supplemental informal brief address issues raised for the first 

time on appeal, we do not review those issues. See In re Under 

Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014).
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

In connection
with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Fidus Mezzanine Capital, L.P. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Edward H. Ross, principal executive officer of the Company, and I, Cary L. Schaefer, principal financial officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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: November 3, 2011 |  | /s/ EDWARD H. ROSS                                                                                                                                                                                   
|                       |  | Edward H. Ross                                                                                                                                                                                       
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer of Fidus Investment Advisors, LLC, the manager of Fidus Investment GP, LLC, the general partner of Fidus
Mezzanine Capital, L.P. (principal executive officer)               
|                       | 
|                       |  | /s/ CARY L. SCHAEFER                                                                                                                                                                                 
|                       |  | Cary L. Schaefer                                                                                                                                                                                     
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer of Fidus Investment Advisors, LLC, the manager of Fidus Investment GP, LLC, the general partner of Fidus
Mezzanine Capital, L.P. (principal financial and accounting officer)
#### In re: ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., LITIGATION.

MDL No. 1969.

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Aug. 11, 2008.

Before JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman, J. FREDERICK MOTZ, ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., KATHRYN H. VRATIL and DAVID R. HANSEN, Judges of the Panel.

*1371ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel: Defendants James M. Fasone, Hal E. Kinsey, and Stephen L. Farr have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to centralize this litigation in the Southern District of Texas. This litigation currently consists of three actions pending in the District of Colorado, the Eastern District of Missouri, and the Middle District of Tennessee, respectively, as listed on Schedule A. Common plaintiff Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc. (AJG) opposes the motion. If the Panel nevertheless orders centralization, AJG favors selection of the Eastern District of Missouri as transferee district.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we are not persuaded that Section 1407 centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation at the present time. There are only three actions and a single plaintiff in this docket, and the actions all involve a rather uncomplicated and straightforward issue: whether the three named defendants,1 who are former AJG employees, breached their separate employment agreements when they left the company and joined an alleged competitor. At oral argument, it became apparent that the primary focus of discovery in each action will be the individual conduct that each defendant allegedly engaged in after leaving AJG to solicit AJG customers and recruit other AJG employees. While the actions may share some questions of fact, movants have failed to convince us that those questions are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer at this time. Alternatives to transfer exist that may minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. *See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation,*446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L.1978); *see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth,*§ 20.14 (2004).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these three actions is denied.

SCHEDULE A

MDL No. 1969 — IN RE: ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., LITIGATION

*District of Colorado*

*Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc. v. James M. Fasone,*C.A. No. 1:08-931

*Eastern District of Missouri*

*Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc. v. Hal E. Kinsey,*C.A. No. 4:08-635

*Middle District of Tennessee*

*Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc. v. Stephen L. Farr,*C.A. No. 3:08-453

1

. Each defendant is named in only one of the three actions. *See*Schedule A.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tony Weaver, Appellant.

Submitted April 5, 2010;

decided April 29, 2010

Motion for poor person relief granted only to the extent that Ronald C. Valentine, Esq., Wayne County Public Defender, 26 Church Street, Lyons, New York 14489 is assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
September 29, 2023

Re: Weekly Notification of Rule Amendments –

Updates to Risk Parameters Established by ICC 

Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity 

Exchange Act and Commission Regulation 

40.6(d)

VIA ELECTRONIC PORTAL

Mr. Christopher Kirkpatrick

Secretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20581

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

ICE Clear Credit (“ICC”) hereby submits, pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act and 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) Regulation 40.6(d), a notification of changes to 

risk parameters established by ICC in consultation with the ICC Risk Committee, Trading Advisory Group 

and/or Risk Working Group. ICC is registered with the Commission as a derivatives clearing organization.

The purpose of this notification is to report any changes to the risk parameters established by ICC. During 

the week ending September 29, 2023, changes were made to the following parameters: 

• Recovery Rates (RR) update for one NA SN Risk Factor

ICC has posted a copy of this submission on its website concurrent with this filling. 

ICC would be pleased to respond to any questions the Commission or the staff may have regarding this 

submission. Please direct any questions or requests for information to the attention of the undersigned 

at olivia.bazor@ice.com or 904-855-5580.

Sincerely,

Olivia Bazor

Staff Attorney
William J. Smith (WJS-9137) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

TN RE: WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 21 MC 102 (AKH) 

MARIA DE LA CRUZ, 

NOTICE OP THE 

BROOKIi`IELD 

V. PARTIES' ADOPTION OF 

AMENDED ANSWER 

TO MASTER 

COMPLAINT 

80 LAFAYETTE ASSOCIATES, LLC, ET. AL., 

CASE N;JMBER: (AKH) 

07 CV 4464 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants Brookfield Financial Properties, 

Inc., Brookfield Financial Properties, L.P., WFP Tower B Ca L.P., WFP Tower B Co. GP 

Corp., BFP Tower C Co. LLC, BFP Tower C MM LLC and WFP Retail Co. L.P. 

(collectively the "Brookfield Parties"), as and for their responses to the allegations set 

forth in the Complaint by Adoption (Check-Off Complaint) Related to the Master 

Complaint filed in the above referenced action, hereby adopt the Brookfield Parties' 

Amended Answer to Master Complaint, dated October 16, 2007, which was filed in the 

matter of In re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 

102 (AKH). 

WHEREFORE, the Brookfield Parties demand judgment dismissing the above 

captioned action as against each of them, together with their cost and disbursements. 

Case 1:07-cv-04464-AKH Document 29 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 1 of 2
Dated: New York, New York 

October 18 2007 

Faust, Go~tz,~,ScherJc~t·B1ee, LLP 

By: \PilliamV· smith(WJSAttorn~vs folfthe Brookfield P.ar;ties 

Two R~tgF~treet, 26'h Floor. 

New York, NY 10006 

(212)363-6900 

Case 1:07-cv-04464-AKH Document 29 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Green Mountain Recovery, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Levi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.    /s/ Joseph Levi Joseph Levi Title: President and Chief Executive Officer     August 11, 2009
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tobias Boyland, Appellant.

Submitted January 23, 2012;

decided February 21, 2012

Reported below, 79 AD3d 1658.

Motion to vacate this Court’s December 29, 2011 dismissal order granted *[see*18 NY3d 856 (2011)].
#### David Anthony STEBBINS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Rita F. STEBBINS and David D. Stebbins, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-2687.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 6, 2013.

Filed: Nov. 12, 2013.

David Anthony Stebbins Harrison, AR, pro se.

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner David A. Stebbins appeals from the judgment of the District Court1 dismissing his pro se action. Upon review of the record, we conclude that we lack *719jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. *See Dieser v. Cont’l Cas. Co.,*440 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir.2006) (explaining that jurisdictional issues “will be raised sua sponte”). Following the dismissal of his complaint, Stebbins filed what was in effect a timely motion for postjudgment relief under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. *See Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney,*489 U.S. 169, 174, 109 S.Ct. 987, 103 L.Ed.2d 146 (1989) (“[A] postjudgment motion will be considered a Rule 59(e) motion where it involves ‘reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a decision on the merits.’ ” (citation to quoted case omitted)). That motion remains pending, and until the District Court rules on it, Stebbins’s notice of appeal will lie dormant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (noting that if a party timely files a Rule 59 motion for a new trial or to alter or amend the judgment, the time to file the appeal runs from the entry of the order disposing of such motion); *United States v. Duke,*50 F.3d 571, 575 (8th Cir.); *cert. denied,*516 U.S. 885, 116 S.Ct. 224, 133 L.Ed.2d 154 (1995).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

1

. The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 1. | Such                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30,                2008,                fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of                the                Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The                information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the                quarter ending September 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                Amir F. Heshmatpour       |
|----------------------------------------------|
| Amir                F. Heshmatpour           |
| President                                    |
| (Principal                Executive Officer) |

----
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 22 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 22 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 22 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 22 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 4 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

IN RE BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CO. 

SECURITIES LITIGATION 

Case No. 07-CV-5867 (PAC) 

Electronically Filed

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Jai Chandrasekhar, hereby certify that on October 24, 2007 I mailed the 

Affidavit of Service on Defendant Andrew Bodnar (with attached Summons) by firstclass mail to the Clerk of Court for filing; electronically filed the Affidavit of Service 

(with attached Summons) with the Clerk of Court in accordance with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and the Southern District of New York’s 3rd Amended Instructions for 

Filing an Electronic Case or Appeal, Local Rules, and Procedures and Guidelines for 

Electronic Case Filing; and mailed copies of the Affidavit of Service (with attached 

Summons) by first-class mail to: 

Counsel for Defendant Bristol-Myers 

Squibb Co.: 

Lorin L. Reisner, Esq. 

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP 

919 Third Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Counsel for Defendant Peter A. Dolan: 

Richard J. Davis, Esq. 

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153 

Date: October 24, 2007 

/s/ Jai Chandrasekhar 

Jai Chandrasekhar (JC-3789) 

Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 22 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 5 of 5
Amendment to the Company's 2003 Stock Incentive Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.1 

AMENDMENT TO THE MULTI-COLOR CORPORATION 

2003 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 

The following amendment to the Multi-Color Corporation 2003 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) was approved by the Board of
Directors of Multi-Color Corporation on September 16, 2010. The Plan is hereby amended, effective as of September 16, 2010, as follows: 

Section 5(g) of the Plan is amended to add the following sentence to the end of Section 5(g): 

“Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Committee shall have the authority to determine that an Option held by an Optionee who retires before
attaining age 55 shall terminate on a date which is more than three months after the Optionee’s date of retirement, provided that such Option termination date shall be on or before the Option’s expiration
date.” 
 Date: September 16, 2010 
  

	
	 MULTI-COLOR CORPORATION

	
	 /s/ Nigel Vinecombe

	
	 Nigel Vinecombe

President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL CIOPPA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 291 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of October, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 21.1
                                                                  SUBSIDIARIES

Berkshire Crossing Retail LLC, a Delaware LLC
Berkshire Crossing Shopping Center LLC, a Delaware LLC
Bradley Financing Corp., a Delaware corporation
Bradley Financing Partnership, a Delaware partnership
Bradley Operating Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership
Bradley Spring Mall LP, a Delaware limited partnership
Bradley Spring Mall, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Colby Grove Retail LLC, a Delaware LLC
Grand Traverse Crossing Shopping Center, LLC, a New York LLC
Grove Court Shopping Center LLC, a Delaware LLC
Heritage Mishwaka LLC, Delaware limited liability company
Heritage Montgomery SPE LLC, a Delaware LLC
Heritage Montgomery SPE MGR Inc., a Delaware corp.
Heritage Property Investment Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited
    partnership
Heritage Realty Management, Inc., a Maryland corporation
Heritage Realty Special LP Corporation, a Maryland corporation
Heritage SPE Corp., a Delaware corporation
Heritage SPE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
Heritage SPE MGR LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
Heritage Spradlin SPE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
Heritage Spradlin SPE MGR Inc., a Delaware corporation
Heritage Warminster SPE LLC, a Delaware LLC
Heritage Warminster SPE MGR Inc., a Delaware corporation
Heritage-Austen Acquisition Inc., a Maryland corporation
NH Heritage Limited Partnership, a New Hampshire limited partnership
Pioneer Grand Traverse Company, LLC, a New York LLC
Salmon Run Plaza LLC, a Delaware LLC
Williamson Square Associates Limited Partnership, an Illinois limited
    partnership
#### Crystal Biton, Also Known as Saphyre Redford, et al., Appellants, v State Farm Insurance Company et al., Respondents.

Submitted November 7, 2011;

decided February 9, 2012

Reported below, 2008 NY Slip Op 88892(U).

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*17 NY3d 845 (2011)].