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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Thomas Attard

v. Case No. 06-cv-355-PB

Document No. 2007 DNH 063

Jean Benoit, et al.

O R D E R

Thomas Attard sued his former employer, the University of

New Hampshire, and the chair of the department in which he

worked, Jean Benoit, after the University declined to renew his

employment contract. Benoit seeks judgment on the pleadings with

respect to Attard’s claims for wrongful termination, tortious

interference with contractual relationship, and misrepresentation. I address each of Benoit’s arguments in turn. 

I. WRONGFUL TERMINATION

Benoit cites several decisions of this court which hold that

a wrongful termination claim ordinarily may not be maintained

against a co-employee. See Singleterry v. Nashua Cartridge 

Case 1:06-cv-00355-PB Document 15 Filed 05/04/07 Page 1 of 3
-2-

Prods., Inc., 1995 WL 54440 (D.N.H. 1995); Miller v. CBC Cos.,

Inc., 908 F.Supp. 1054, 1066 (D.N.H. 1995); Bourque v. Town of

Bow, 736 F. Supp. 398, 401 (D.N.H. 1990). Attard responds by

correctly noting that the New Hampshire Supreme Court has

recently held that a wrongful termination claim sounds in tort. 

Porter v. City of Manchester, 151 N.H. 30 (2004). The decision

Attard relies on, however, does not authorize a wrongful

termination claim to be maintained against a co-employee. Nor

has Attard cited any other case which has so held. While I can

conceive of public policy arguments to support either party’s

position on the issue. Attard has failed to present any reasoned

argument to justify a departure from this court’s precedents. 

Accordingly, I decline to expand New Hampshire law in the manner

he suggests. Benoit’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with

respect to Attard’s wrongful termination claim is granted (Doc.

No. 11). 

II. INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP

Benoit argues that he cannot be liable for interfering with

Attard’s employment contract because he was Attard’s co-employee. 

Case 1:06-cv-00355-PB Document 15 Filed 05/04/07 Page 2 of 3
-3-

Although I agree with the general proposition that a co-employee

ordinarily cannot be held liable for interfering with his

employer’s contracts if he was acting within the scope of his

employment, I cannot determine from the pleadings alone whether

Benoit was acting within the scope of his employment. 

Accordingly, I deny Benoit’s request for judgment on the

pleadings with respect to this issue. 

III. MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM

I deny Benoit’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with

respect to Attard’s misrepresentation claim because the claim 

turns on disputed facts. 

SO ORDERED.

________________________

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

May 4, 2007

cc: Paul McEachern, Esq.

Martha Van Oot, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00355-PB Document 15 Filed 05/04/07 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Appendix A to item 601(c) of Regulation S-K
Commercial and Industrial Companies
Article 5 of Regulation S-X
(in thousands, except per share data)
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                          22,047
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,164
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    288,317
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               352,829
<PP&E>                                         259,578
<DEPRECIATION>                                  72,302
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 565,713
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          193,553
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           394
<OTHER-SE>                                     332,370
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   565,713
<SALES>                                        273,540
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               273,540
<CGS>                                          166,848
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  101,043
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (198)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,847
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,252
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,595
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,595
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        


</TABLE>
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1396

To encourage States to require a holding period for any student expelled

for bringing a gun to school.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. DEFAZIO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To encourage States to require a holding period for any

student expelled for bringing a gun to school.

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

3 SECTION 1. HOLDING PERIOD FOR STUDENTS BRINGING A

4 GUN TO SCHOOL.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 222 of

6 the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of

7 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5632) or any other provision of law, for

8 fiscal year 2002 and each fiscal year thereafter, the

9 amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under

10 that section for a fiscal year shall be increased for preven-
2

•HR 1396 IH

1 tion and intervention related to school violence by 25 per2 cent, if the State has in effect a State law described in

3 subsection (b) by not later than the first day of that fiscal

4 year.

5 (b) STATE LAW DESCRIBED.—A State law is de6 scribed in this subsection if it requires that—

7 (1) any administrator or employee of a public

8 or private school who has reasonable cause to believe

9 that a student is or has been in possession of a fire10 arm while in or on the premises of a school building

11 in violation of Federal or State law, shall imme12 diately report the student’s conduct to an appro13 priate law enforcement agency and to an appropriate

14 juvenile department or agency of the State;

15 (2) upon receipt of a report under paragraph

16 (1), the appropriate law enforcement agency shall

17 immediately cause an investigation to be made to de18 termine whether there is probable cause to believe

19 that the student, while in or on the premises of a

20 public building, possessed a firearm in violation of

21 Federal or State law;

22 (3) if a determination of probable cause is made

23 under paragraph (2)—

24 (A) the student shall immediately be de25 tained by the appropriate law enforcement
3

•HR 1396 IH

1 agency for not more than 72 hours in an appro2 priate juvenile justice setting for purposes of

3 psychological evaluation and for a judicial de4 termination (pursuant to a hearing) regarding

5 whether the student is a danger to himself or

6 herself or to others; and

7 (B) a parent, guardian, or other adult with

8 responsibility for the student shall be notified of

9 that detention and the purposes of that deten10 tion; and

11 (4) if the court makes a determination under

12 paragraph (3)(A) that the student is a danger to

13 himself or herself or others, the student shall be

14 placed in an appropriate juvenile justice setting to

15 receive professional psychological counseling.

16 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

17 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be

18 necessary to carry out this section.

Æ
Case 1:06-cv-00307-JL Document 124 Filed 03/06/08 Page 1 of 4Case 1:06-cv-00307-JL Document 124 Filed 03/06/08 Page 2 of 4Case 1:06-cv-00307-JL Document 124 Filed 03/06/08 Page 3 of 4Case 1:06-cv-00307-JL Document 124 Filed 03/06/08 Page 4 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Paul Blackmer

v. Civil No. 06-cv-158-PB

Warden, Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility, et al

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated November 20, 2006.

SO ORDERED.

December 18, 2006 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Paul Blackmer, pros e

Case 1:06-cv-00158-JM Document 22 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 1
Ex. 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
        PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


     Each of the undersigned hereby certifies,  for the purposes of section 1350
of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United  States  Code,  as adopted  pursuant  to
Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of
EduLink,  Inc.  ("EduLink"),  that, to his  knowledge,  the Quarterly  Report of
EduLink on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004,  fully  complies  with
the  requirements  of Section 13(a) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information  contained in such report fairly presents,  in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operation of EduLink.  This
written  statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission
as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed  original of this  statement  has been
provided  to EduLink  and will be  retained  by  EduLink  and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


   Date: November 1, 2006                   By: /s/ Aleksandr Shvarts
                                            ---------------------------

                                            ALEKSANDR SHVARTS
                                            Chief Executive Officer

   Date: November 1, 2006                   By: /s/ Gennady Pomeranets
                                            ----------------------------

                                            GENNADY POMERANETS, CPA

                                            Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc.

v. Civil No. 06-cv-100-JD

HemCon, Inc.

O R D E R

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. moves for leave to file

two motions in limine after the deadline. The motions in limine

seek to preclude HemCon from introducing at trial certain

evidence that was disclosed in HemCon’s supplementary

disclosures. Because the supplementary disclosures were served

on Marine Polymer on March 16, 2010, the deadline for filing

motions in limine, Marine Polymer could not have filed its

motions in response to the supplementary disclosures within the

time allowed. That circumstance provides good cause for the late

filing. HemCon has not yet responded to the motion for leave.

The final pretrial conference in this case is scheduled for

Wednesday, April 7, and evidence in the trial is scheduled to

begin on April 19, 2010. The schedule for responses must be

shortened.

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 261 Filed 04/01/10 Page 1 of 2
Conclusion

Marine Polymer’s motion for leave to file motions after the

deadline (document no. 217) is granted. Marine Polymer shall

file immediately the two motions in limine submitted with its

motion for leave.

HemCon shall file its responses to the motions no later than

noon on Tuesday, April 6, 2010.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

April 1, 2010

cc: Julie M. Baher, Esquire

Garet K. Galster, Esquire

Daniel R. Johnson, Esquire

Heather E. Krans, Esquire

Joseph A. Kromholz, Esquire

Lynda Q. Nguyen, Esquire

Brian M. Poissant, Esquire

Daniel D. Ryan, Esquire

Ognian V. Shentov, Esquire

Jonathan M. Shirley, Esquire

Daniel E. Will, Esquire

Leigh S. Willey, Esquire

2

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 261 Filed 04/01/10 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                 Subsidiaries of Candlewood Hotel Company, Inc.

1. Candlewood Hotel Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

2. Candlewood Leasing No. 1, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

3. Candlewood Holding I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

4. Candlewood Portfolio I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

5. Candlewood Ventures I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

6. Candlewood Hotel Company Fund I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

7. Candlewood Lansing Venture, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

8. Candlewood Vista I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

9. Candlewood Management, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

10. Candlewood Orange County, CA-Airport, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
    company.

11. Candlewood Santa Clara, CA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

12. Candlewood Meriden, CT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

13. Candlewood Chicago, IL-Wheeling, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

14. Candlewood Overland Park-College Boulevard, LLC, a Delaware limited
    liability company.

15. Candlewood Boston, MA-Burlington, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

16. Candlewood Detroit, MI-Farmington Hills, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
    company.

17. C-V Lansing, MI, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

18. Candlewood Jersey City, NJ, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

19. Candlewood Jersey City-Urban Renewal, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability
    company.

20. Candlewood Morris Plains, NJ-Parsippany, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
    company.

21. Candlewood Clarkstown, NY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 11

                                 PANAVISION INC.

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                  SECOND QUARTER ENDED    SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                        JUNE 30,               JUNE 30,
                                                    1997       1996         1997     1996
                                                   -------    -------      -------  -------
<S>                                                <C>        <C>          <C>      <C>
WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING.............    18,155     13,706       18,155   13,706

Shares and options considered outstanding
for all periods under SAB 55,
using the treasury stock method.................     1,159      1,571        1,179    1,571
                                                   -------    -------      -------  -------
    Total.......................................    19,314     15,277       19,334   15,277
                                                   -------    -------      -------  -------
                                                   -------    -------      -------  -------
Net income......................................   $ 2,866    $ 1,231      $ 6,384  $ 2,427
                                                   -------    -------      -------  -------
                                                   -------    -------      -------  -------
Net income per common share.....................   $   .15    $   .09      $   .33  $   .17
                                                   -------    -------      -------  -------
                                                   -------    -------      -------  -------
</TABLE>

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

NOTE:  Primary and fully diluted net income per share are the same.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

          - RIN 0648-XK36

# AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

# ACTION:

Notice of cancellation of a public meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The New England Fishery Management Council has cancelled the public meeting of its Groundfish Committee that was scheduled for Monday, September 29, 2008 beginning at 9 a.m., in Peabody, MA.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The initial notice was published on September 11, 2008, (73 FR 52831), and the meeting will be rescheduled at a later date and announced in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: September 16, 2008.

Tracey L. Thompson,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. E8-21900 Filed 9-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Randy S. Campney, Sr.

v. Civil No. 06-cv-297-JD

Superintendent, Bare Hill

Correctional Facility

PROCEDURAL ORDER

On August 26, 2008, the court denied the Superintendent’s

motion for summary judgment without prejudice, because the

question of procedural default raised in the motion could not be

resolved while Randy S. Campney’s motion for a new trial was

pending in state court. Campney has filed a notice that he has

exhausted his state court remedies pertaining to his motion for a

new trial. On January 8, 2009, the New Hampshire Supreme Court

declined Campney’s discretionary appeal. Therefore, the case can

now proceed.

The Superintendent shall file a motion for summary judgment

on or before October 9, 2009. Campney will have thirty days to

respond.

 SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

September 23, 2009

cc: Randy S. Campney, Sr., pro se

Stephen D. Fuller, Esquire

Susan P. McGinnis, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00297-JD Document 77 Filed 09/23/09 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      15,874,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,891,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (99,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,666,000
<PP&E>                                     283,233,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (10,569,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             344,228,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,292,000
<BONDS>                                    200,526,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      100,689,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        90,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,270,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               344,228,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            31,445,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,271,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,918,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                256,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   256,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER>                1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            59,800
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                           33,092
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                             32,196
<EQUITIES>                                      24,024
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 120,405
<CASH>                                          15,608
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               3,633
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          10,469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 209,507
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 57,877
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             54,925
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 15,325
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,866
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,201
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   209,507
<PREMIUMS>                                      51,923
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              3,488
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               1,271
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   1,775
<BENEFITS>                                      35,072
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            22,037
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,267
<INCOME-TAX>                                       411
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                856
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       856
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  55,697
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 57,877
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>