Source: http://www.bankrupt.com/CAR_Public/080513.mbx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:16:26+00:00

Document:
allergic reaction if they consume this product.
location for a full refund or exchange."
did not know how many bad lots or batches were in distribution.
tablets pose a risk of toxicity in patients with renal failure.
your heart rate or kill you.
included generic Digitek, that weren't reported to the agency.
for all costs associated with it, including the litigation."
stock between July 19, 2007, and Nov. 26, 2007.
company insiders who were not named as defendants and Messrs.
damages plus interest and attorneys' fees, among other remedies.
Southern District of New York, Judge John G. Koeltl, presiding.
practice changes it consented to under the deal.
insurer, one of the nation's largest.
sure doctors get the full benefit of these changes," she said.
to find a way to bring good medical care to the country."
called the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
commitments regarding their business practices.
-- HCSC Insurance Services Corporation.
federal judge in Washington ruled, according to Reuters.
same issue are pending against the company, the report says.
judge's words, Steve Korris writes for St. Clair Record.
retained authority to review the award.
Wireless case, however, they do not have a clue.
her and a class of similar customers.
the dispute to an arbitrator.
contracts governed by laws of other states.
is possible," Judge Hylla said.
"It is the plaintiff's position that that hasn't been done yet,"
assumes the arbitrator has jurisdiction to make those findings.
Illinois Supreme Court," he added, "to get a ruling on those."
to ignoring that clause or striking it down."
was careful to limit its ruling the way it did," he said.
"Clearly, they did not go outside the state of Illinois."
contracts that have the same arbitration provision as Ms.
that we do not believe he has jurisdiction," Mr. Wuller added.
he was going to consider post-July 2003 contracts."
judicial or arbitral authority and must be rejected."
before he can eliminate them from the class . . ."
would be fine with us."
Mr. Walters said, "They are asking for an advisory opinion."
opportunity for judicial review should be after a final award.
seen all those contracts and I doubt the arbitrator has."
is any need for him to step in yet and that that is his ruling.
should be ". . .motion denied, award confirmed."
objection, and you have not done that."
Judge Hylla has not adopted either one of the drafted orders.
against Cutera, Inc., and two of its executive officers.
prospects, and seeks unspecified monetary damages.
relief, costs and other relief.
invitation or permission of the recipients.
filed its response to the complaint.
the Southern District of Texas.
et al., Civil Action No. H:05-cv-02121."
al., Civil Action No. H:05-cv-2414."
Action No. H-05-2121," and entered a scheduling order.
plaintiffs and also appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel.
allege facts that state any claim for securities fraud.
plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint.
of the strong presumption of law favoring a right to amend.
as a therapy for treatment resistant depression.
June 2004 were inaccurate and without merit.
Feb. 5, 2004, through Aug. 1, 2006.
equitable or injunctive relief, if available.
raised in a case that is currently submitted to the U.S.
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.
plaintiffs' supplemented first amended complaint with prejudice.
The plaintiffs filed their Brief of Appellants on Jan. 2, 2008.
Action Reporter, March 20, 2008).
al., Case No. 4:05-cv-02121," and was filed with the U.S.
Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
through the date of the filing of this Complaint.
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
Douglas S. Johnston, Jr., Esq.
attempt to control canker disease, Jacksonville.com reports.
from the commercial groves of Central and East Central Florida.
billion spent, the state and federal government abandoned it.
property without paying adequate compensation.
residents an average of an extra $34 per tree.
"It's an amount that is much less than the plaintiffs expected,"
residents involved in the case are paid.
"This case has been about the replacement costs of the trees.
We'll continue the fight," Mr. Gilbert said.
value. Others thought the trees were worth much more.
able to come up with a compromise."
be a hybrid of wheat.
reaction if they consume spelt products.
distributors and natural food retailers.
with the Food and Drug Administration.
return them unopened to the place of purchase for a refund.
problems during 2007, OsterDowJones Select reports.
motion to dismiss the case.
Uniphase Corp.'s May 5, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
securities litigation against JDS Uniphase Corp.
filed an amended complaint on Nov. 20, 2006.
of the duty of disclosure, and seeks unspecified damages.
be heard on May 16, 2008.
On March 28, 2008, the defendants moved for summary judgment.
That motion is scheduled to be heard on June 13, 2008.
A case management conference is scheduled for May 16, 2008.
date has been set in that action.
protection, biotechnology, semiconductor, aerospace and defense.
understanding regarding a settlement of the OCLI action.
quarter ended March 29, 2008.
summary judgment on collateral estoppel issues.
company and Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc., and the Plans.
amended complaint was granted with prejudice on June 15, 2006.
and JDSU asserted counterclaims for breach of contract.
The court dismissed those counterclaims on Sept. 11, 2006.
day, the plaintiffs moved for class certification.
pending resolution of that motion.
Northern District of California under Judge William W.
Laboratory, Inc., E-TEK Dynamics, Inc., and SDL Ltd.
to dismiss claims against Kevin Kalkhoven.
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
on the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.
sought more than $20 billion in alleged damages.
recoverable costs from the plaintiffs.
District of California, Judge Claudia Wilken presiding.
10b-5, and seeks unspecified damages.
class certification, which defendants had not opposed.
exchanged a draft stipulation reflecting the proposed dismissal.
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2008.
The suit is "Zelman v. JDS Uniphase Corp., et al., Case No.
Northern District of California against JDS Uniphase Corp.
claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the U.S.
15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.
was assigned Judge Claudia Wilken.
Northern District of California, Judge Claudia Wilken presiding.
their jobs at a meat processing plant, various reports say.
before and after shifts to do so.
violated state employer record keeping laws.
constituted "changing clothes" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.
doffing of protective gear constituted "changing clothes."
purpose and are under the employer's control."
area is 'de minimis' and is therefore not compensable."
compensable if it takes less than 10 minutes."
"additional time" at issue, not the amount of time itself.
the group includes at least 1,000 workers.
meals and various packaged grocery products.
date the complaint was filed (the direct purchaser complaint).
competition laws as well as consumer protection laws.
District of Pennsylvania, Judge Paul S. Diamond, presiding.
they began selling them, according to Sera Congi of WBZTV.com.
finds pieces of glass wedged into the deck.
found she was not alone.
and disappointed that she had not been warned about the tables.
are less sharp and dangerous than other glasses.
process, that can cause the product to be somewhat defective."
my kids at risk or anyone else for that matter."
has decided not to order a recall.
slapped with a purported class action suit filed in the U.S.
Action Reporter, May 8, 2006).
with the required transportation, the lawsuit alleged.
Sally Dworak-Fisher of the Public Justice Center.
their parents have gotten a big break.
if they lack the documentation," Ms. Dworak-Fisher said.
and about 500 since 2004.
forward to continuing services to homeless students.
Court for the District of Maryland under Judge Catherine C.
currently pending against fiduciaries of the Oneida Ltd.
Plan's assets during the period May 28, 2003, to March 20, 2006.
position and its ultimate collapse into bankruptcy.
lawsuit against all of the Defendants named in the Complaint.
Administrative Committee et al., Case Number: 6:2007cv00340,"
New York, Senior Judge Neal P. McCurn, presiding.
to cover taxes under each ordinance.
A. "City of Los Angeles v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al."
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.
complaint adding a claim for a declaratory judgment.
grounds of improper joinder of defendants and claims.
the matter with the City of San Diego case.
Superior Court of Los Angeles.
misjoinder of the defendants and the claims.
demurrers to the third amended complaint.
stayed the action pending such exhaustion.
B. "City of Fairview Heights v. Orbitz, Inc., et al."
certification. That motion is pending.
C. "City of Rome, Georgia, et al., v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
transient occupancy taxes and/or excise taxes on lodging.
trust and a declaratory judgment.
June 7, 2006 naming additional plaintiffs.
D. "Pitt County v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
On Feb. 13, 2006, the defendants removed this action to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
motion to dismiss the complaint.
that decision or, in the alternative, interlocutory appeal.
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
E. "City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
and putative classes of Texas municipalities.
conversion and a declaratory judgment.
similar to that of the plaintiff.
dismiss the City of San Antonio's amended complaint.
Marshall County v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
benefit from taxes on innkeepers.
conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duties.
dismiss the complaint. That motion is pending.
G. "City of Columbus, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
have enacted occupancy or excise taxes on lodging.
for the Northern District of Ohio.
purposes, and that motion was granted on Nov. 6, 2007.
municipalities as plaintiffs. That motion is pending.
that have enacted transient room taxes.
constructive trust, and a declaratory judgment.
dismiss with respect to the amended complaint.
dismiss. On Sept. 13, 2007, the defendants answered.
interlocutory appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court or the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
motion for reconsideration. Both motions are pending.
complaint to withdraw its class allegations.
H. "County of Nassau, New York v. Hotels.com, LP, et al."
have imposed hotel taxes since March 1, 1995.
conversion, unjust enrichment and a constructive trust.
On Jan. 31, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
Circuit. That appeal is pending.
I. "City of Fayetteville v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
uniform hotel taxes on lodging.
enrichment, and a constructive trust.
complaint correcting the names of certain defendants.
complaint. That motion is pending.
J. "City of Jefferson, Missouri v. Hotels.com, LP, et al."
judgment, breach of fiduciary duties and a constructive trust.
complaint. That motion is being briefed.
K. "City of Gallup, New Mexico v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
On July 6, 2007, a putative class action was filed with the U.S.
taxing authorities that have enacted lodgers' taxes.
Lodger's Tax Act and municipal ordinances.
complaint. The parties are currently conducting discovery.
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.
defendants' motion to dismiss the remaining claims.
Sept. 4, 2007, the defendants answered the amended complaint.
pre-trial purposes, and that motion was granted on Nov. 6, 2007.
Sept. 19, 2005, were false and misleading.
and without leave to re-plead.
quarter ended April 28, 2008.
Tempur-Pedic's May 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
June 25, 2007, pursuant to a motion filed by the Company.
appeal the judgment is June 2, 2008.
henceforth "stop asking because they are not getting."
RealVerdict, and they can give their own evidence as witnesses.
not to have children in the first place.
interest rates cut on world hunger.
-- Looksmart Ltd., and Findwhat.com.
County Circuit Court of Arkansas.
that was not generated by actual consumer clicks.
online pay per click advertising."
the case was again sent back to the Miller County Circuit Court.
credits and $30 million for requested fees and attorney costs.
case -- Checkmate Strategic Group, Inc. v. Yahoo!, Inc. No.
connected to the click fraud.
including over $585,000 for attorney fees.
including attorney fees of over $258,000.
Law Offices of Stephen F. Malouf, P.C.
milk (as part of a minor component of added natural flavors).
06308A11 (22 ounce canisters) and 3530716 (8 ounce pouches).
Buck's Fish Batter Mixes are affected by this recall.
during a routine label review.
disclosed to the public those consumer's "Correct SSN"
of Arbitron, Inc., between July 19, 2007, and November 26, 2007.
Georgia on behalf of shareholders who acquired Cbeyond, Inc.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.