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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas Sparkman,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-18-00216-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Flint Law Firm LLC

(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 1/22/2018, 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: January 24, 2018 /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 9855 Filed 01/26/18 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 9855 Filed 01/26/18 Page 2 of 2
S. 2618

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to extend medicare cost-sharing

for the medicare part B premium for qualifying individuals through September

2005.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF MEDICARE COST-SHARING FOR THE MEDICARE PART B PREMIUM FOR QUALIFYING INDIVIDUALS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(E)(iv)) is amended by striking

‘‘2004’’ and inserting ‘‘2005’’.

(b) TOTAL AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION.—Section

1933(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u–3(g)) is amended

to read as follows:

‘‘(g) SPECIAL RULES.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to each period described

in paragraph (2), a State shall select qualifying individuals,

subject to paragraph (3), and provide such individuals with

assistance, in accordance with the provisions of this section

as in effect with respect to calendar year 2003, except that

for such purpose—

‘‘(A) references in the preceding subsections of this

section to a year, whether fiscal or calendar, shall be

deemed to be references to such period; and

‘‘(B) the total allocation amount under subsection (c)

for such period shall be the amount described in paragraph

(2) for that period.

‘‘(2) PERIODS AND TOTAL ALLOCATION AMOUNTS

DESCRIBED.—For purposes of this subsection—

‘‘(A) for the period that begins on January 1, 2004,

and ends on September 30, 2004, the total allocation

amount is $300,000,000;

‘‘(B) for the period that begins on October 1, 2004,

and ends on December 31, 2004, the total allocation amount

is $100,000,000; and

‘‘(C) for the period that begins on January 1, 2005,

and ends on September 30, 2005, the total allocation

amount is $300,000,000.

‘‘(3) RULES FOR PERIODS THAT BEGIN AFTER JANUARY 1.— For any specific period described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2), the following applies:

‘‘(A) The specific period shall be treated as a continuation of the immediately preceding period in that calendar
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ELAINE KENNA.

May 2, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Fletcher Lee Davis III,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04643-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Lopez McHugh LLP - Newport Beach, CA

(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 1/11/2018, 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: January 12, 2018 /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 9662 Filed 01/16/18 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 9662 Filed 01/16/18 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Net Lease Income &
Growth Fund XX Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-
QSB  for  the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with  the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on  the  date  hereof  (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President  of  AEI
Fund  Management XX, Inc., the Managing General  Partner  of  the
Partnership, and Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI
Fund  Management XX, Inc., each certify, pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.
1350,  as  adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     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 Partnership.


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XX, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              November 6, 2006



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XX, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              November 6, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           8,490
<SECURITIES>                                    51,217
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,317
<ALLOWANCES>                                       171
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,144
<PP&E>                                           5,281
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,397
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 152,016
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,771
<BONDS>                                        135,873
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           141
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,762
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   152,016
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,944
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,359
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   145
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    77
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,961)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,519)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,442)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    495
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,937)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"STS-92","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"4Qguf82tuR\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-92\/\">STS-92<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-92\/embed\/#?secret=4Qguf82tuR\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-92” — NASA\" data-secret=\"4Qguf82tuR\" 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"}
#### Jacqueline Beaton, Respondent, v Transit Facility Corp. et al., Respondents, and Dolores Curry, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[789 NYS2d 314]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Dolores Curry appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated April 22, 2004, which granted the separate motions of the plaintiff and the defendants Transit Facility Corporation and Jean W Jean-Paul for leave to enter a judgment against her upon her failure to appear and answer and for an assessment of damages.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motions are denied.

A party’s right to recover upon a defendant’s failure to appear or answer is governed by CPLR 3215 *(see Reynolds Sec. v Underwriters Bank & Trust Co.,*44 NY2d 568, 572 [1978]), which requires that the plaintiff state a viable cause of action *(see*CPLR 3215 [f]; *Fappiano v City of New York,*5 AD3d 627 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 702 [2004]; *Green v Dolphy Constr. Co.,*187 AD2d 635, 636 [1992]). In determining whether a party has a viable cause of action, the court may consider the pleadings in the action, and any other proof submitted by the plaintiff *(see Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp.,*100 NY2d 62, 71 [2003]; *Feffer v Malpeso,*210 AD2d 60 [1994]). The plaintiffs complaint, verified by her attorney, and her affidavit of merit, which incorporated conclusory statements alleging negligence based on information provided by her attorney and which failed to set forth the facts constituting the alleged negligence, were insufficient to support a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215 (f) *(see Henriquez v Purins,*245 AD2d 337 [1997]; *Zelnik v Bidermann Indus. U.S.A.,*242 AD2d 227 [1997]; *Feffer v Malpeso, supra).*Moreover, in view of the fact that the appel*638lant’s car was stolen on the day of the accident, the other evidentiary proof submitted by the plaintiff failed to satisfy her burden of establishing the existence of a viable cause of action against the appellant *(see Fappiano v City of New York, supra; Luna v Luna,*263 AD2d 470 [1999]; *Green v Dolphy Constr. Co., supra; Silberstein v Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y.,*96 AD2d 1096 [1983]). Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a judgment against the appellant upon her failure to appear or answer and for an assessment of damages should have been denied. For the same reasons, the motion of the defendants Transit Facility Corporation and Jean W Jean-Paul, which relied exclusively upon “the reasons advanced by the plaintiff,” should have been denied. Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.
EX-10.37





 Exhibit 10.37 

CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED BY [***], HAS BEEN OMITTED BECAUSE IT IS BOTH (I) NOT MATERIAL AND (II) IS
THE TYPE THAT THE HONEST COMPANY, INC. TREATS AS PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL. 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED CONTRACT MANUFACTURING AGREEMENT 

This Amendment No. 2 (the “Amendment”) is made as of 1st day of May, 2020 (the “Effective Date”) to the
Second Amended and Restated Contract Manufacturing Agreement entered into as of January 1, 2019 (the “Agreement”), as amended to date, by and between The Honest Company, Inc., a Delaware company (“Honest’’) and
Valor Brands LLC, a.k.a. Ontex North America, a limited liability company (“Supplier”). Capitalized words used herein and not defined shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement. 

WHEREAS, Honest and Supplier entered into the Agreement for the supply and manufacture of certain Products set forth in the
Agreement; and 
 WHEREAS, Honest and Supplier also desire to update pricing on certain items. 

NOW, THEREFORE, Honest and Supplier hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 

1. Section 2 of Exhibit A of the Agreement shall be amended to insert pricing [***]. Such pricing, attached hereto as
Schedule 1, shall be effective as of Effective Date. 
 2. Except to the extent expressly modified by this Amendment,
the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed. Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Agreement. Except to the extent expressly modified by this Amendment, the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed. 
 This Agreement may be executed by facsimile or e-mail signatures and in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. 

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] 

  
 1 













 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and intending to be
legally bound hereby, the Parties have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the Effective Date. 
  

									
	The Honest Company, Inc.	 	    	 	Valor Brands LLCA a.k.a. Ontex North America
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Glenn Klages
	 		 	By:	  	 /s/ James A. Skinner

	Name: Glenn Klages	 		 	Name: James A. Skinner
	Title: EVP Supply Chain	 		 	 Title: VP & General Manager

          Ontex North America

          (Valor Brands LLC)



  
 2 













 [***] Product Pricing Table [***] 

[***]
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60294

 Conference Calendar 

__________________

JAMES C. METCALF,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

M. L. McMILLIAN, GRAY EVANS,

EARL TATE, YELLIE GRAMMENS, 

ANN LEE,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:93cv327-B-D

- - - - - - - - - -

August 22, 1995

Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James C. Metcalf filed a pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP)

civil rights complaint, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was

improperly confined to administrative segregation; that various

state officials conspired against him because of his political

beliefs; and that he was sentenced without due process. The

district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous. 
No. 95-60294

-2-

The Due Process Clause does not create a liberty interest in

a specific custody classification, although a state may create a

liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause through the

enactment of statutory or regulatory procedures. Hewitt v.

Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466-69 (1983). Under Mississippi law,

Metcalf had no right to a particular classification. Miss. Code

Ann. §§ 47-5-99 - 47-5-103 (1993); Tubwell v. Griffith, 742 F.2d

250, 253 (5th Cir. 1984). 

In Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2300-01 (1995), the

Supreme Court stated that the reviewing court should consider the

nature of the challenged state action and whether it involved

such a significant departure from normal prison conditions that

the state might have conceivably created a liberty interest. 

Metcalf's initial confinement in administrative segregation as an

escape risk is not an "atypical and significant hardship" which

would give rise to a protected liberty interest. Id. at 2300.

Metcalf has not raised or briefed his claims that state

officials conspired against him because of his political beliefs

or that he was sentenced without due process. Therefore, these

claims are considered abandoned. Evans v. City of Marlin, Tex.,

986 F.2d 104, 106 n.1 (5th Cir. 1993) (issues not raised or

briefed are considered abandoned).

AFFIRMED.
#### SEDDON-LATHROP OIL CORPORATION v. SERIES I PLUS, INC. AND ADL ENTERPRISES, INC., AND ICC, INC.

May 16, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### GLENN JONES v. CHARYL ALI.

July 11, 1989.

Cross-petition for certification denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1084

In re: DEMETRIUS HILL,

Petitioner.

On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus. (7:08-cv-00283-JCT-RSB)

Submitted: June 28, 2012 Decided: August 3, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demetrius Hill, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Demetrius Hill petitions for a writ of mandamus asking 

this court to award attorney’s fees to his counsel under the 

Equal Access to Justice Act after a jury returned a verdict in 

Hill’s favor in his action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six 

Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 

(1971). He has filed a second petition for a writ of mandamus 

requesting this court to intervene and stop the district court 

from conducting a new trial. We conclude that Hill is not 

entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used 

only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States 

Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. 

Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, 

mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a 

clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan 

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for 

appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th 

Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Hill is not available by way 

of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petitions for writ of 

mandamus. We further deny Hill’s motion for appointment of 

counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITIONS DENIED