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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Cheryl N. McWilliams, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-03444-PHX-DGC 

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL 

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff) 

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/26/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party 

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed Name 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6155 

Telephone number 

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8631 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8631 Filed 11/06/17 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DORIS WIEGAND.

June 13, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 8 , 2023

NO. 03

- 21

- 00502

- CV

Natin Paul; WC 1st and Trinity, LP; WC 1st and Trinity, GP, LLC; WC 3rd and Congress, LP; and WC 3rd and Congress, GP, LLC , Appellant s

v.

The R o y F. and JoAnn Cole Mitte Foundation , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES KELLY AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

Thi s is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on July 8, 2021

, a nd the

supplemental receivership order signed by the trial court on July 8, 2021

. Having reviewed th e

record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible e rror in the trial

court’s judgment or the receivership order

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s

judgment and the receivership order

. The appellant s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal,

both in this Court and in the court below.
#### JOHN ROYSTER v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD.

July 2, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
No. 15.

#### George S. Oglesby, plaintiff in error, *vs.*W. W. Gilmore, administrator, &c. defendant.

[1.] Where the Circuit Court misinterprets the decision of the Supreme Court, on a former hearing, the cause will he remanded, with instructions.

In Equity, in Lee Superior Court. Before Judge Warren, November Term, 1849.

*96When this cause was previously before this Court, (5 *Ga. Rep.*56,) it was remanded, with instructions, “ That the administrator, *de bonis non,*file his bill within a reasonable time; against both the parties now before the Court, in'which all concerned may litigate ; and failing or refusing so to do, it is farther *Ordered,*that the funds in the hands of the receiver be paid over to George S. Oglesby.”

A motion being subsequently made in the Court below, to dissolve the injunction, on the coming in of the answer, and that the money in the hands of the receiver be paid over to Oglesby, the presiding Judge refused the same, upon the ground that such an order would be inconsistent with the instructions of the Supreme Court.

This decision was excepted to, and the cause brought up for the purpose of obtaining a construction of this Court upon its own order.

H. Holt, for plaintiff in error.

E. R. Brown, for defendant.

The following order was entered in this case:

George S. Oglesby, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Wm. W. Gilmore, administrator, &c. defendant.

This cause came before the Court, upon a bill of exceptions and transcript of the record, from the Superior Court of Lee County; and after argument of counsel heard thereon, it is considered and adjudged by the Court, that the order of the Court below be reversed, and a re-hearing had, upon the ground that the Court erred, in holding that it was controlled, in the premises, hy the instructions sent down from this Court, in the case of *Oglesby vs. Gilmore and others,*decided at the Americus Term, 1848 ; its intention being to hold up the fund, in the hands of the receiver, for a reasonable length of time, only for the purposes of the litigation therein contemplated; and should the administrator, *de bonis non,*interplead, as he has done, then to place the disposition of the fund in controversy, entirely at the discretion of the Chancellor, untrammeled by the authority of this Court.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ron Bryant,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04077-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: December 8, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9373 Filed 12/15/17 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 1 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 2 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 3 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 4 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 5 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 6 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 7 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 8 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 9 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 10 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 11 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 12 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 13 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 14 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 15 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 16 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 17 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 18 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 19 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 20 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 21 of 22
Case 2:15-cv-01587-JJT Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 Page 22 of 22
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's consolidated financial statements included in the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         424,462
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,835
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,080)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               521,684
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 710,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,924
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            35
<OTHER-SE>                                     629,919
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   710,209
<SALES>                                         37,497
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,497
<CGS>                                           30,245
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,919
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  35
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,985
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,722
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,333
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,263
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Linda Herridge","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/linda-m-herridgenasa-gov\/","title":"Small Business Gets an Assist from NASA Problem Solvers","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"eFhYe27dTG\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/kennedy\/small-business-gets-an-assist-from-nasa-problem-solvers\/\">Small Business Gets an Assist from NASA Problem Solvers<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/kennedy\/small-business-gets-an-assist-from-nasa-problem-solvers\/embed\/#?secret=eFhYe27dTG\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Small Business Gets an Assist from NASA Problem Solvers” — NASA\" data-secret=\"eFhYe27dTG\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/zero_g_airplane.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
#### SEAVIEW DEMOLITION & RENTAL CO., INC. v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION.

May 22, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Reno and Another *v.*Hollowell.

Covenant on an obligation for the payment of money. Plea of payment and a release, which release the plaintiff had since destroyed. Replication, that the plaintiif had not destroyed the release. *Held^*that the plaintiff, not having specially demurred to the plea for duplicity, as he might have done, was bound to answer all its park; and that the leplication, therefore, not denying the payment, was insufficient.

*Tuesday, May*8.

ERROR to the *Jackson*Circuit Court.

Scott, J.

*Hollowell*declared against *Reno*and *Moore*in covenant on an obligation for a sum of money. The defendants pleaded that they had, before the commencement of the suit, paid to the plaintiif the full amount of the said writing *obligatory,*together with all interest, which the plaintiif accepted in full satisfaction; and that the plaintiff executed and delivered to them a release of the said writing or covenant, which release he, afterwards, forcibly wrested out of their hands and possession and tore it in pieces. The plaintiif replied, that he did not forcibly wrest and tear in pieces the said supposed release, as said defendants had alleged. There was a demurrer to this replication, joinder, and judgment for the plaintiff.

This pica sets up two distinct matters of defence, payment, and a release, either of which alone, if well pleaded, would be a sufficient bar to the action. The plaintiif might have objected to it, by special demurrer, for duplicity; but nothavingdone so, he was hound to answer all its parts. 5 Bac. Abr. 444,5.—1 Chitt. 513.—1 Tent. 272 (1).

This replication does not deny the payment, which is material. It is, therefore, substantially defective, and the demurrer ought to have been sustained.

*39*Braman,*for the plaintiffs.

*JVelson,*for the defendant.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is reversed, and the proceedings subsequent to the plea are set aside, with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

(1)

 If, instead of demurring for duplicity, the opposite party passes the fault by and pleads over, he is, in that case, bound to answer each matter alleged; and has no right, on the ground of the duplicity, to confine himself to any single part of the adverse statement. Steph. on Pl. 295.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         189,598
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,843,413
<ALLOWANCES>                                   245,688
<INVENTORY>                                    193,057
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,428,943
<PP&E>                                       1,538,601
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,045,660
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,933,755
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,968,533
<BONDS>                                        155,639
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    619,884
<COMMON>                                     9,499,845
<OTHER-SE>                                     694,230
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,933,755
<SALES>                                     12,870,222
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,283,828
<CGS>                                       14,834,323
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,458,071
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,555
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             268,333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (459,131)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (459,131)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (459,131)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, George Aronson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Interpharm Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a 14 and 15d 14) for the registrant and we have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

         a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this report
whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:    February 17, 2004

/S/ GEORGE ARONSON
--------------------------------
George Aronson
Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Simmy Hill,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-16-00518-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: March 2, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 939 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 4.2(f)

Execution Copy

SIXTH AMENDMENT TO  RIGHTS AGREEMENT

THIS SIXTH AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT (this "Sixth Amendment") is made and entered into as of this 2nd day of May, 2005, by and between FRONTIER
AIRLINES, INC. (the "Company") and MELLON INVESTOR SERVICES LLC as Rights Agent (the "Rights Agent").

Recitals



Agreement

The Company and the Rights Agent hereby amend the Rights Agreement as follows:

1.     Section 2
of the Rights Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:



2.     The
second sentence of Section 18(a) of the Rights Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:



3.     Section 20(c) of
the Rights Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:



4.     Section 32
of the Rights Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:



5.     The
remainder of the Rights Agreement shall remain unchanged, and the Rights Agreement as amended above, shall remain in full force and effect.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be fully executed on their behalf as of the date first above written.

| |  | FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC.     
| |  | ----------------------------
| |  | By:                         
| |  | Name:                       
| |  | Title:                      
| |  | MELLON INVESTOR SERVICES LLC
| |  | By:                         
| |  | Name:                       
| |  | Title:                      



QuickLinks