alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CHARLIE v. BOUTTE.

No. 1597.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 9, 1936.

George L. Fontenot, of Ville Platte, for appellant.

E. G. Burleigh, of Opelousas, for appel-lee.

DORE, Judge.

This case comes to us on appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of the district court sustaining an exception of no cause and no right of action, and dismissing plaintiff’s suit as in case of nonsuit.

The record does not contain the original petition nor a copy thereof. It appears from the record that the original petition has been lost or misplaced; it further appears that the misplacement or the loss of the said petition is not due to the fault of the local clerk of court, and also that the attorney for the plaintiff has a copy of the said petition, but that he has failed to supply the same. More than a month has elapsed since a demand has been made upon plaintiff to furnish us with a copy of the said petition, but to no avail.

We cannot decide the case in the absence of the original petition or a certified copy thereof. As it appears that the appellant has made no effort to supply the defect in the transcript, nothing remains for us to do but to dismiss the appeal on our own motion. See Smith v. Orleans Railroad Co., 35 La.Ann. 559; Hill Cotton Lumber Co., Inc., v. Meyer, 9 La.App. 116, 118 So. 839.

For these reasons, the appeal is hereby dismissed at the costs of the plaintiff and appellant.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1638

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide that geographic

reclassifications of hospitals from one urban area to another urban area

do not result in lower wage indexes in the urban area in which the

hospital was originally classified.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 26, 2001

Mr. TOOMEY (for himself, Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of

California, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. SWEENEY, Mr. HALL of Ohio, Mr.

PALLONE, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. WATT of North Carolina, Mr. THOMPSON of California, and Ms. DELAURO) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide

that geographic reclassifications of hospitals from one

urban area to another urban area do not result in lower

wage indexes in the urban area in which the hospital

was originally classified.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Geographic

5 Reclassifications Equity Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1638 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF WAGE INDEX FOR HOSPITAL GEO2 GRAPHIC RECLASSIFICATIONS FROM ONE

3 URBAN AREA TO ANOTHER URBAN AREA.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1886(d)(8)(C)(ii) of the

5 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(8)(C)(ii)) is

6 amended—

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘(I)’’ after ‘‘(ii)’’; and

8 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub9 clause:

10 ‘‘(II) If the application of subparagraph (B) or a de11 cision of the Medicare Geographic Classification Review

12 Board or the Secretary under paragraph (10), by treating

13 hospitals located in one urban area as being located in

14 another urban area reduces the wage index for that one

15 urban area (as applied under this subsection), the Sec16 retary shall calculate and apply such wage index under

17 this subsection as if the hospitals so treated had not been

18 excluded from the calculation of the wage index for that

19 one urban area.’’.

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

21 subsection (a) apply to cost reporting periods beginning

22 on or after October 1, 2001.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

The Wolfington Group

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00423-JL

Allegiant Marketing

Group, Inc.

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for

April 15, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. will include a substantive,

meaningful discussion of the parties’ claims and defenses. 

Counsel are expected to be prepared to engage in an open,

cooperative discussion in good faith. Counsel are reminded of

the obligations imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) and (4), and

should be prepared to explain the factual basis underlying any

claims or defenses they have pleaded.

Each party shall be represented at the Preliminary Pretrial

Conference by counsel authorized to bind the party on all

matters.

To the extent that the substance of this order constitutes a

departure from the customary Preliminary Pretrial practice to

Case 1:08-cv-00423-JL Document 19 Filed 04/08/09 Page 1 of 2
2

which counsel are accustomed, the court apologizes for the short

notice, and will bear this in mind at the conference.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: April 8, 2009

cc: Peter G. Callaghan, Esq.

Alfred C. Frawley, Esq.

Edward A. Haffer, Esq.

Michael J. LaBrie, Esq.

Charles L. McLawhorn, III, Esq.

Andrew B. Peterson, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00423-JL Document 19 Filed 04/08/09 Page 2 of 2
| Period | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Total |
|--------|----|----|----|----|-------|
| 1981   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 1982   | 2  | 3  | 3  | 3  | 11    |
| 1983   | 1  | 1  | 2  | 3  | 7     |
| 1984   | 3  | 7  | 10 | 12 | 32    |
| 1985   | 12 | 21 | 17 | 18 | 68    |
| 1986   | 14 | 14 | 21 | 16 | 65    |
| 1987   | 22 | 19 | 12 | 16 | 69    |
| 1988   | 11 | 6  | 12 | 7  | 36    |
| 1989   | 5  | 7  | 5  | 5  | 22    |
| 1990   | 3  | 5  | 6  | 3  | 17    |
| 1991   | 2  | 2  | 3  | 1  | 8     |
| 1992   | 1  | 1  | 1  | 4  | 7     |
| 1993   | 1  | 2  | 2  | 0  | 5     |
| 1994   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1995   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1996   | 0  | 2  | 0  | 0  | 2     |
| 1997   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 1     |
| 1998   | 0  | 0  | 1  | 0  | 1     |
| 1999   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2000   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2001   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2002   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 2     |
| 2003   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2004   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2005   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2006   | 0  | .  | .  | 0  | .     |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

Karen L . Bartlett et al .

v . Civil No. 08-cv-358-JL

Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc ., et al .

ORDER

Re : Document No . 37, Motion to Compel Discovery

Ruling : The defendant argues that there has not been a

meaningful attempt at resolution of these discovery disputes by

plaintiffs's counsel . Counsel will meet (local counsel in person,

with out-of-state counsel by telephone) for at least two hours and

attempt to resolve the disputes over the requests and objections

listed in plaintiff's motion to compel (document 37) no later than

January 2, 2009 . The court will hold a hearing, on a date to be

set by the Deputy Clerk during January, 2009, on any unresolved

discovery issues, if necessary based on plaintiff's counsel's

notification of the Deputy Clerk on or before January 5, 2009 .

All counsel of record will be required to attend, in person, and

the court will likely assess fees and costs against the parties

and/or counsel for any discovery disputes with respect to which

their positions are deemed unreasonable or not well supported by

applicable law .

/s/ Joseph N . Laplante

Joseph N . Laplante

U .S . District Judge

Date : December 19, 200 8

cc : Keith M . Jensen, Esq .

Patrick J . O'Neal, Esq .

Christine M . Craig, Esq .

John E . Friberg, Esq .

Joseph P . Thomas, Esq .

Linda E . Maichl, Esq .

Paul J . Cosgrove, Esq .

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 48 Filed 12/19/08 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 48 Filed 12/19/08 Page 2 of 2
IIB

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1906

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 18, 2002

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

AN ACT

To amend the Act that established the Pu’uhonua O

Honaunau National Historical Park to expand the

boundaries of that park.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1906 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pu‘uhonua o

3 Ho ̄naunau National Historical Park Addition Act of

4 2002’’.

5 SEC. 2. ADDITIONS TO PU‘UHONUA O HO ̄ NAUNAU NA6 TIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

7 The first section of the Act of July 26, 1955 (69 Stat.

8 376, ch. 385; 16 U.S.C. 397), is amended—

9 (1) by striking ‘‘That, when’’ and inserting the

10 following:

11 ‘‘SECTION 1. (a) When’’; and

12 (2) by adding at the end thereof the following

13 new subsections:

14 ‘‘(b) The boundaries of Pu‘uhonua o Ho ̄naunau Na15 tional Historical Park are hereby modified to include ap16 proximately 238 acres of lands and interests therein with17 in the area identified as ‘Parcel A’ on the map entitled

18 ‘Pu‘uhonua o Ho ̄naunau National Historical Park Pro19 posed Boundary Additions, Ki‘ilae Village’, numbered

20 PUHO–P 415/82,013 and dated May, 2001.

21 ‘‘(c) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to

22 acquire approximately 159 acres of lands and interests

23 therein within the area identified as ‘Parcel B’ on the map

24 referenced in subsection (b). Upon the acquisition of such

25 lands or interests therein, the Secretary shall modify the
3

HR 1906 RFS

1 boundaries of Pu‘uhonua o Ho ̄naunau National Historical

2 Park to include such lands or interests therein.’’.

3 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

4 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums

5 as may be necessary to carry out this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives June 17, 2002.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Karen S. Bartlett

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00358-JL

Mutual Pharmaceutical

Company, Inc.

ORDER

The plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike Defense Expert Dr. Stern

. . . and Related Relief” (document no. 230) is granted in part. 

Given the significance of the recently discovered manuscript and

the failure to disclose it in a timely manner, Mutual shall make

Drs. Stern and Valuck available for a supplemental deposition, to

be conducted as soon as possible and not to exceed two hours

each. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(C). Bartlett is granted

leave to add the manuscript to her exhibit list and expert

reliance materials. She may also request a jury instruction

regarding the late production. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(B). 

All other requested relief is denied as inappropriate under the

circumstances.

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 251 Filed 07/16/10 Page 1 of 2
Dated: July 16, 2010

cc: Keith M. Jensen, Esq.

Bryan Ballew, Esq.

Patrick J. O’Neal, Esq.

Christine M. Craig, Esq.

Eric Roberson, Esq.

Timothy P. Beaupre, Esq.

Jeffrey D. Geoppinger, Esq.

Joseph P. Thomas, Esq.

Linda E. Maichl, Esq.

Paul J. Cosgrove, Esq.

Stephen J. Judge, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 251 Filed 07/16/10 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         358,014
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    187,362
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,332,512
<PP&E>                                       1,098,271
<DEPRECIATION>                                 245,858
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,545,894
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,782,448
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,498
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,244,773)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,545,894
<SALES>                                        824,155
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               824,155
<CGS>                                          386,964
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,077,828
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             943,501
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,197,174)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,197,174)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.30)
        

</TABLE>
- 1 - 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND 

EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PIYUSH G. PATEL, DAVID J. KIRKPATRICK, 

ERIC JAEGER, BRUCE D. KAY, ROBERT J. 

GAGALIS, ROBERT G. BARBER, JR., 

LAWRENCE COLLINS, MICHAEL A. 

SKUBISZ, JERRY A. SHANAHAN, 

HOR CHONG (DAVID) BOEY, 

Defendants. 

No. 01:07-00039-SM 

AFFIDAVIT OF JONATHAN A. SHAPIRO IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANT ERIC JAEGER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE

DECLARATION OF STEVEN HENNING

I, Jonathan A. Shapiro, Esquire, on oath, do depose and state as follows: 

1. I am a partner of the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP in 

Palo Alto, California. I am an active member in good standing of the bars of California, 

Massachusetts and the District of New Hampshire. 

2. I represent Defendant Eric Jaeger. I submit this Affidavit in support of Mr. 

Jaeger’s Reply in Support of his Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike the 

Declaration of Steven Henning, filed herewith. 

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the 

transcript of the June 30, 2011 deposition of Steven Henning. 

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 250 Filed 07/28/11 Page 1 of 2
 - 2 - 

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a letter I sent to Sherry 

Gonzales of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2003. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Dated: July 27, 2011 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Jonathan A. Shapiro 

Jonathan A. Shapiro 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 

AND DORR LLP

950 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304

(650) 858-6000 

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 250 Filed 07/28/11 Page 2 of 2
10

A.6. Share of Non-real-estate Bank Loans with a Floating Interest Rate Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1993...... 76.7 84.6 70.0 70.3 48.2 78.1 60.1 61.0 64.5 83.9 1994...... 75.1 82.9 74.3 72.3 51.6 75.7 58.6 59.8 70.4 80.2 1995...... 73.8 83.9 75.9 73.0 53.1 72.2 61.7 63.9 73.6 76.7 1996...... 63.1 58.1 71.2 67.3 32.9 61.4 60.6 61.5 69.1 62.2 1997...... 65.8 66.4 73.2 67.8 49.9 64.3 60.1 58.0 68.0 67.0 1998...... 54.4 55.0 59.4 68.5 46.7 42.0 57.6 54.8 62.7 51.1 1999...... 60.7 45.6 66.0 68.6 58.2 52.0 52.6 54.6 60.2 63.1 2000...... 66.9 57.3 60.7 67.0 62.2 76.7 53.4 54.6 61.8 74.5 2001...... 74.5 72.9 65.6 75.0 61.0 80.5 58.8 60.9 69.4 81.5 2002...... 75.1 64.6 65.4 75.8 60.9 84.1 67.8 64.5 68.4 81.2 2003...... 74.3 68.7 59.6 74.6 69.5 86.5 67.6 65.1 63.0 82.1 2004...... 74.3 67.2 47.5 73.4 71.2 91.3 65.8 63.7 63.1 79.9 2001: Q4... 78.1 74.2 63.6 78.3 38.0 88.5 60.5 63.3 72.2 84.4 2002: Q1... 72.3 62.1 64.1 69.7 57.9 88.1 64.2 57.5 64.4 79.5  Q2... 75.1 56.2 72.9 74.5 52.8 89.1 69.6 67.6 72.9 79.3  Q3... 72.2 53.6 57.8 78.2 75.1 67.9 68.5 68.7 68.5 74.8  Q4... 81.4 78.1 65.4 81.8 37.9 93.5 67.6 62.8 68.0 92.2 2003: Q1... 74.7 64.0 79.5 75.4 61.7 86.0 68.2 67.5 63.7 80.8  Q2... 69.2 53.9 63.8 67.1 74.0 84.0 66.7 62.8 54.8 79.9  Q3... 78.2 74.9 41.0 81.0 78.2 88.8 69.7 64.4 73.6 84.1  Q4... 74.9 75.5 53.0 75.3 67.4 87.1 66.0 65.6 61.6 83.4 2004: Q1... 69.4 65.2 62.7 66.8 55.1 86.3 64.5 66.2 61.9 72.3  Q2... 80.5 79.6 52.8 77.7 72.5 94.5 68.5 66.1 67.6 88.9  Q3... 74.5 67.5 48.7 71.0 68.8 92.1 60.5 60.1 60.9 82.0  Q4... 74.1 64.4 34.6 79.7 86.9 91.5 70.1 61.7 61.7 79.2 2005: Q1... 72.7 61.2 73.9 73.5 51.6 83.2 66.7 59.1 64.2 78.1  Q2... 82.7 64.7 78.6 74.9 89.7 95.4 65.8 64.4 69.5 88.9  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
1

Plaintiffs’ complaint states that they reside in Concord, New Hampshire. The rest of the

complaint is a nearly verbatim recitation of the “Master Complaint.”

2

In re Norplant, 950 F. Supp. 770, 780-81 (E.D. Tex. 1996).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

In re: 

PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION

PAULA JEWELL and WILLIAM

JEWELL

v.

WYETH, et al.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507-WRW

 4:08CV00377

PLAINTIFFS

 

 DEFENDANTS

TRANSFER ORDER

This case involves only non-Arkansas Plaintiffs,1

 and was directly filed in the Eastern

District of Arkansas. By filing directly in this MDL 1507 Transferee Court, rather than in what

would otherwise be a more appropriate venue, Plaintiffs not only bypass the multidistrict

litigation statute providing for transfer and later remand, but also threaten to burden this court

with unnecessary transfer decisions under § 1404(a). The court in In re Norplant stated:

The court will however evaluate, under the standards of §1404(a), the propriety of

cases filed directly in this court under circumstances reflecting obvious

forum-shopping by plaintiffs’ counsel. Further, the court is prepared to proceed at

this time either in the context of motions for change of venue or sua sponte if

necessary. Obviously, § 1404(a) transfers before the conclusion of multidistrict

litigation pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 present the anomalous

situation of transferring cases out to a more appropriate venue under § 1404(a), only

to have those cases transferred back to this court under §1407 by the Judicial Panel

on Multidistrict Litigation. Nevertheless, this court is prepared to do just that in order

to discourage future attempts by plaintiffs to bypass the § 1407 remand mechanism

and in order to minimize the burden on this transferee court of unnecessary transfer

decisions at a later time resulting in the return of cases to the districts where they

should have been filed in the first place.2

Case 1:08-cv-00184-JL Document 2 Filed 05/07/08 Page 1 of 2
2

Whether addressed now or later, § 1404 transfers are an unavoidable result of these filings. 

Therefore, I will address these transfers forthwith in hopes to deter any future filings of this

nature.

Under 28 U.S.C. §1404, this case is transferred to the United States District Court for the

District of New Hampshire. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close and transfer

this case to that district.

Additionally, the Clerk of the Court is directed to send contemporaneous copies of this

transfer order to the MDL panel to allow, to the extent possible, fast-tracking of a § 1407 transfer

of this case back to MDL-1507 for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings. Counsel

is reminded of their obligations under MDL Panel Rule 7.5(e) and directed to promptly notify

the MDL Panel of the new case number designated to the case in the receiving district.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of May, 2008.

 

 /s/ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.____

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 1:08-cv-00184-JL Document 2 Filed 05/07/08 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ROBERT J. MURPHY,

Petitioner

v.

MICHELE FRANK A/K/A MICHELE MARINARI, WESTPORT INS., FRANK WILLIAMS, O'DONNELL HAGNER AND WILLIAMS, P.C. AND ROBERT MORRIS AND MORRIS & CLEMM, P.C.,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 475 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of March, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2004 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2004

    To provide for the establishment of a Department of Agriculture 
research program to enhance and develop the nitrogen-fixing ability of 
                  legumes and other commercial crops.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 2001

Mr. Smith of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                    to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for the establishment of a Department of Agriculture 
research program to enhance and develop the nitrogen-fixing ability of 
                  legumes and other commercial crops.

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

SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RESEARCH PROGRAM ON NITROGEN-
              FIXING BY PLANTS.

    (a) Research Program.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall make it a 
priority to establish a research program, directly or through grants--
            (1) to enhance the nitrogen-fixing ability and efficiency 
        of legumes;
            (2) to develop new varieties of legumes that fix nitrogen 
        more efficiently; and
            (3) to develop new varieties of other commercially 
        important crops that potentially are able to fix nitrogen.
    (b) Funding Source.--From funds available to the Secretary for 
agricultural research, the Secretary shall use not less than $5,000,000 
to carry out this section.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

City of Rochester,

v. Civil No. 08-cv-263-JL

Rennelda Trust et al.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The pro se defendants removed this action, which seeks

injunctive relief and civil penalties for their alleged violation

of state and local laws governing property maintenance and

junkyards, from Strafford County Superior Court, invoking

jurisdiction on the basis of “federal civil rights claims” they

intended to (and later did) assert in their counterclaim. A

counterclaim, however, cannot confer federal subject-matter

jurisdiction. Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation

Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830-33 (2002). No other basis for

federal subject-matter jurisdiction is apparent from the record. 

Accordingly, the defendants--who, as the party invoking this

court’s jurisdiction by removing the case here, have the burden

of showing that jurisdiction exists, see, e.g., Johansen v.

United States, 506 F.3d 65, 68 (1st Cir. 2007)--shall show cause

by October 13, 2008, why this action should not be remanded to

the Strafford County Superior Court for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction in this court.

Case 1:08-cv-00263-JL Document 17 Filed 09/29/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

September 29, 2008

cc: Catherine M. Costanzo, Esq.

Danford J. Wensley, Esq.

George Blaisdell, pro se

Clay Phalen, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00263-JL Document 17 Filed 09/29/08 Page 2 of 2