alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Audrey THOMPSON, et al. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 2010-C-1374.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re Harp, Chad; State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. et al.; —Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, Alexandria City Court, No. 110,030; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-1369.

Denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61783-61784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25029]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Submission for OMB Review; Request for Comments on a Revised 
Information Collection: (OMB Control No. 3206-0233; Form RI 25-51)

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-13, May 22, 1995 and 5 CFR 1320), this notice announces that the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) a request for comments on a revised 
information collection. This information collection, ``Civil Service 
Retirement System (CSRS) Survivor Annuitant Express Pay Application for 
Death Benefits'' (OMB Control No. 3206-0233; Form RI 25-51), will be 
used by the Civil Service Retirement System solely to pay benefits to 
the widow(er) of an annuitant. This application is intended for use in 
immediately authorizing payments to an annuitant's widow or widower, 
based on the report of death, when our records show the decedent 
elected to provide benefits for the applicant.
    Approximately 34,800 RI 25-51 forms are completed annually. The 
form takes approximately 30 minutes to complete. The annual estimated 
burden is 17,400 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Cyrus S. Benson on (202) 606-
4808, FAX (202) 606-0910 or e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#97d4eee5e2e4b9d5f2f9e4f8f9d7f8e7fab9f0f8e1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="63201a1116104d21060d100c0d230c130e4d040c15">[email protected]</span></a>. Please 
include your mailing address with your request.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within November 5, 
2010.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--

James K. Freiert (Acting), Deputy Associate Director, Retirement 
Operations, Retirement and Benefits, U.S. Office of Personnel 
Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3305, Washington, DC 20415-3500; 
and
OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, 
NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.

    For information regarding administrative coordination contact:

Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RB/RM/Administrative 
Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E

[[Page 61784]]

Street, NW., Room 4H28, Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606-4808.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
John Berry,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-25029 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-38-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., a

California Corporation,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CATLIN SYNDICATE LIMITED, sued as

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London

Subscribing to Policy No. PCI937441010,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-17283

D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00889-BAM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 12, 2014

San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

FILED

DEC 22 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Ruiz Food Products, Inc. appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor

of its insurance carrier, Catlin Syndicate Limited. We have jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1291,1 and affirm.

1. We review de novo a district court’s rulings on cross-motions for summary

judgment. Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, 730 F.3d 1070, 1086 (9th Cir.

2013). In California, the interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law. 

See Oliver Mach. Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 232 Cal. Rptr. 691, 695 (Ct. App.

1986).

2. The district court properly concluded there was no coverage under theCatlin

policy, which insured against “accidental or unintentional contamination, impairment

or mislabelling of an Insured product(s), which occurs during or as a result of its

production, preparation, manufacture, packaging or distribution . . . .”

a. In light of the negative tests for the presence of salmonella in Ruiz’s

products and ingredients, there was no evidence of actual contamination.

b. The mere risk of contamination did not trigger coverage. The policy covers

only contamination that actually “occurs.”

1 With the parties’ consent, a magistrate judge conducted the proceedings below. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); see also id. § 636(c)(3) (providing for appellate

jurisdiction).

2
c. Neither a recall of Ruiz’s product nor the economic effect of the recall was

an “impairment” of an insured product under the policy.

3. Because there was no coverage under the policy, Catlin did not breach the

duty of good faith and fair dealing. See Waller v. Truck Ins. Exch., Inc., 900 P.2d 619,

639 (Cal. 1995).

AFFIRMED.

3
#### Camille LANDRY, Individually, and on Behalf of her Minor Child, Tai Landry v. PSA OF LAFAYETTE, LLC.

No. 2011-CD-0125.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 18, 2011.

In re Pediatric Services of America, Inc.; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2004-5188.

Stay denied. Writ denied.
868 A.2d 1007

#### IN THE MATTER OF MARVIN S. DAVIDSON, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 255181969).

March 9, 2005.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 04-259, concluding that MARVIN S. DAVIDSON of ORANGE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1969, should be reprimanded for violating *Rule*1:21-6 (record-keeping violations), and *RPC*1.15 (failure to safekeep property), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MARVIN S. DAVIDSON is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
#### Calloway, Appellant, *v.*Hood et al., Appellees.

(No. 3933 —

Decided January 18, 1943.)

*Mr. C. D. Sutfield,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Yager, Bebout é Stecher,*for appellees.

Carpenter, J.

A general demurrer to the petition was sustained and, plaintiff not wishing to plead again, it was dismissed. From that order, this appeal on questions of law was taken.

The petition alleges that plaintiff, who worked for The Spicer Manufacturing Company, sustained injury from which blindness resulted and employed the defendants, who were attorneys at law, to represent him in a claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

The brief of the plaintiff, appellant herein, states as true, what the petition infers, that his claim was not filed with the Industrial Commission by defendants until it was barred by the statute of limitations and was accordingly dismissed by the commission. Thereafter, the employer voluntarily paid plaintiff $6,000 by check. It is alleged that defendants “induced” plaintiff to endorse that check and they cashed it and gave him $4,250, retaining $1,750 as their fees.

*320It is alleged that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, $500 is. the maximum fee attorneys can charge for such services and, in this action, plaintiff seeks to recover $1,250, the- difference between the $1,750 and the $500.

Without deciding as to what services the $500 maximum attorney fee provision of Section 1465-90, G-eneral Code, applies,- attention is called to the fact that the money under consideration here' did not arise from anything done by or before the Industrial Commission, but arose from proceedings strictly outside of the operation of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, hence that law has no application here.

It is alleged that defendants “induced” plaintiff to endorse the $6,000 check, but no facts are alleged that indicate fraud in such inducement. The plaintiff’s claim is based squarely on the fee provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and, that not applying, the lower court was right in sustaining the demurrer, and its judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Overmyee and Lloyd, JJ., concur.
861 A.2d 121

#### IN THE MATTER OF FRANK MARTINO, III AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 008081994).

December 1, 2004.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 04-199, recommending that FRANK MARTINO, III, formerly of GIBBSBORO, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1994, and who has been temporarily suspended from the practice of law since February 26, 2004, be disbarred for violating *RPC*1.15(a)(knowing misappropriation of client funds), *RPC*1.15(c)(failure to safeguard client funds), and *RPC*8.4(c)(con-duet involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation);

And FRANK MARTINO, III, having been ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that FRANK MARTINO, III, be disbarred, effective immediately, and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys;

*62ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that FRANK MARTINO, III, be and hereby is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7319 

AN ACT 

To amend the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 

2016 to provide flexibility with respect to the leaseback 

of certain Federal real property, and for other purposes. 

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

•HR 7319 EH

1 SECTION 1. LEASEBACK RESTRICTION. 

2 Section 12(b)(4) of the Federal Assets Sale and 

3 Transfer Act of 2016 (40 U.S.C. 1303 note; Public Law 

4 114–287) is amended— 

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘for a period of greater than 

6 3 years’’ before the period at the end; 

7 (2) by striking ‘‘None of the’’ and inserting the 

8 following: 

9 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—None of the’’; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(B) REQUIREMENTS.—A leaseback under 

12 this paragraph— 

13 ‘‘(i) shall expire on or before the last 

14 day of the 3-year period beginning on the 

15 date of the sale of the respective property; 

16 ‘‘(ii) may not contain any options to 

17 extend or renew the leaseback; 

18 ‘‘(iii) may only be entered into once 

19 for purposes of temporarily housing the 

20 Federal agency in the property at the time 

21 of the sale; and 
3 

•HR 7319 EH

1 ‘‘(iv) shall only be for the purpose of 

2 facilitating the sale of the respective prop3 erty.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 21, 

2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7319 

AN ACT 

To amend the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer 

and for other purposes. the leaseback of certain Federal real property, Act of 2016 to provide flexibility with respect to
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 61440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25174]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and date: Wednesday, October 6, 2010; 10 a.m.-11 a.m.

Place: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

Status: Closed to the Public.

Matter To Be Considered

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters. For a recorded message containing the latest agenda 
information, call (301) 504-7948.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: September 29, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25174 Filed 10-1-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P