Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/105655482/Hildale-Colorado-City-DOJ-Case-Motion-to-Change-Venue
Timestamp: 2016-07-31 10:48:26
Document Index: 711245500

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1404', '§ 1404', '§ 1404', '§ 1404', '§ 1391', '§ 1391', '§ 1391', '§ 3612']

UploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicEditors' Picks BooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks AudiobooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks ComicsHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks Sheet MusicHand-picked favorites from our editorsTop BooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop AudiobooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop ComicsWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop Sheet MusicWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodCrafts & HobbiesFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesAdaptationsChildren’sCrime & MysteryFictionHumorMangaNonfictionRomanceSciFi, Fantasy & HorrorSuperheroesYoung AdultPublishersArcanaArchie ComicsBOOM! StudiosDynamiteIDW PublishingKingstone ComicsMarvel ComicsSpace Goat ProductionsTop Cow ComicsValiant ComicsZenescopeDifficultyBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedMixedInstrumentBrassDrums & PercussionGuitar, Bass, and FrettedPianoStringsVocalWoodwindsGenreClassicalCountryFolkJazz & BluesMovies & MusicalsPop & RockReligious & HolidayStandardsWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PETER STIRBA, Utah Bar No. 3118 R. BLAKE HAMILTON, Utah Bar No. 11395 KATHLEEN ABKE, Utah Bar No. 12422 STIRBA & ASSOCIATES 215 South State Street, Suite 750 P.O. Box 810 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110-0810 Telephone: (801) 364-8300 Facsimile: (801) 364-8355 kabke@stirba.com Attorneys for Defendants City of Hildale, Utah, Twin City Power and Twin City Water Authority, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Town of Colorado City, Arizona; City of Hildale, Utah; Twin City Power; and Twin City Water Authority, Inc., Defendants. Case No. CV-12-8123-PCT-HRH HILDALE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE (Oral Argument Requested) Defendants City of Hildale, Utah (“Hildale”), Twin City Power (“TCP”), and Twin City Water Authority, Inc. (“TCWA”) (collectively the “Hildale Defendants”) hereby move this Court for a change of venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Specifically, the Hildale Defendants request that this Court transfer venue from the District of Arizona to the District of Utah, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest logistical efficiency. This Motion is supported by the following memorandum of points and authorities. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES The United States alleges three causes of action against Hildale and the Town of Colorado City, Arizona, (collectively, the “Twin Cities”), and two utility agencies that serve the Twin Cities. The Twin Cities are located approximately 40 miles east of St. Case 3:l2-cv-08l23-HRH Document 24 Filed 09/l0/l2 Page l of 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 George, Utah (“St. George”) on their respective side of the Utah-Arizona border. All of the events and incidents alleged in the Complaint are alleged to have occurred in one or both of the Twin Cities and involve(d) residents of either Colorado City or Hildale. Since all of the witnesses and evidence are located in the Twin Cities area, more than 300 miles from this Court, the Hildale Defendants respectfully request that this Court transfer this case to the Central District of Utah, which is a significantly more convenient venue for all of the parties. I. THE FEDERAL CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE. The federal change of venue statute provides that for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it may have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). This statute “serves as a statutory substitute for forum non conveniens in federal court when the alternative forum is within the territory of the United States.” Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 512-13 (9th Cir. 2000). Despite the fact that the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens no longer applies to changes of venue within the United States, “forum non conveniens considerations are helpful in deciding a § 1404 transfer motion.” Decker Coal Co. V. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). However, “section 1404(a) provides greater flexibility and discretion,” than the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Berry v. Potter, 2006 WL 335841, *3 (D. Ariz. 2006) (unpublished opinion) (citing Piper Aircraft Co. V. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 253 (1981)) (emphasis added). To decide a section 1404 transfer motion, a court must “balance the preference accorded to the plaintiff’s choice of forum with the burden of litigating in an inconvenient forum.” Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843 (citing Mizokami Bros. of Arizona v. Mobay Chemical Corp., 660 F.2d 712, 718 (8th Cir. 1981)). In doing so, the court should consider both public and private factors affecting a forum’s convenience. See id. Public factors include the logistical and practical issues “that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive,” such as ease of access to evidence and information, availability of Case 3:l2-cv-08l23-HRH Document 24 Filed 09/l0/l2 Page 2 of 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 compulsory process for attendance of witnesses, and the cost of obtaining witnesses. 805 F.2d at 843 (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)). Public factors include considerations such as court congestion, “local interest in having localized controversies decided at home,” conflict of laws issues, and “the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty.” 805 F.2d at 843 (quoting Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 241 n. 6 (quoting Gulf Oil Corp., 330 U.S. at 509)). Here, both the relevant public and private factors support the transfer of this case to the District of Utah. II. THE DISTRICT OF UTAH IS AN APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE VENUE TO THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. Under section 1404, a district court may only transfer a case to another district where the case could have been filed in the first place. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Pursuant to the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
, a civil action may be brought in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,” or “any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The United States alleges numerous incidents and events in support of its three causes of action, but does not specify whether said events occurred within the State of Arizona or the State of Utah and does not differentiate between the Twin Cities, simply referring to them as the “Cities.”
In fact, only one allegation - that regarding an incident at the Holm School - actually identifies the location of the alleged dispute, which was in Hildale.
The Complaint does not identify the allegedly aggrieved individuals at all, much less as residents of either Arizona or Utah. Furthermore, the majority of the Complaint’s allegations are based upon the alleged actions and conduct of the Marshal’s Office, a law 1
The “general venue statute,” 28 U.S.C. § 1391, applies to all of the causes of action alleged in the Complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 3612(o), stating specifically that the general venue statute applies to the United States’ 2
See, generally, Doc. 1, at ¶¶ 2, 4, 5, 16-50. 3
Id. at ¶ 28. Case 3:l2-cv-08l23-HRH Document 24 Filed 09/l0/l2 Page 3 of 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 enforcement entity whose members reside in both Arizona and Utah and that, like the TCWA and TCP, serves or served the Twin Cities.
While the Complaint is unclear as to the exact location and residency of the relevant events, individuals, and/or witnesses, it is certain that all of the allegations occurred in the Twin Cities area and involved individuals who reside in either of the Twin Cities. In other words, it is more than fair to say that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the Government’s claims occurred in Utah and the United States could have brought this case in the District of Utah. Additionally, the District of Utah obviously has personal jurisdiction over the Hildale Defendants. Hildale is a Utah governmental entity.
TCWA is a Utah non-profit organization headquartered in Hildale.
TCP was a Utah corporate entity whose plant (which is now closed) and registered agent is located in Hildale.
For these reasons, the District of Utah is an appropriate, alternative venue to which this case may be transferred pursuant to section 1404(a). III. THE DISTRICT OF UTAH IS A MORE CONVENIENT FORUM. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona is nearly 400 miles away from the Twin Cities. While the main courthouse for the District of Utah is located in Salt Lake City, approximately 300 miles away from the Twin Cities, the Utah District Court also maintains chambers and courtroom space in St. George. Counsel can represent to this Court that since 2010, the District of Utah has leased space in the State of Utah’s new Fifth District Courthouse for the purpose of serving individuals located in Southern Utah, sparing those litigants the time and expense of travel to Salt Lake City. United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Braithwaite’s chambers are located in the St. George courthouse. Counsel further represents that parties who wish to have proceedings held in 4
Id. at ¶¶ 4, 8, 9. 5
Id. at ¶ 7. 6
Id. at ¶ 8. 7
Id. at ¶ 9. Case 3:l2-cv-08l23-HRH Document 24 Filed 09/l0/l2 Page 4 of 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 St. George must file the case in the District of Utah’s Central Division and then make their request with the assigned Judge. St. George is located less than an hour’s drive from the Twin Cities and has all of the requisite amenities for the litigation of this case. Counsel for the Hildale Defendants are unaware of any similar federal court facility within the District of Arizona that is as geographically beneficial to all of the individuals involved with this matter and therefore, this case should be transferred to the District of Utah. A. Public and Private Factors Support Transfer to the District of Utah. Saving six hours of travel time for access to proof and witnesses would make the litigation of this case, and certainly trial, easier, more expeditious, and less expensive. These savings would apply equally to the United States and to the Defendants. Given the allegations in the Complaint, it appears that all of the evidence and witnesses relevant to this case is located in the Twin Cities.
Rule 45 requires that subpoenas for depositions be issued from the Court for district in which the deposition is being held and that witnesses are compensated for their time and travel fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2) & (b)(1). St. George is the city nearest to the Twin Cities that is suitable for conducting depositions, meaning that deposition subpoenas would need to be issued from the District of Utah. If this matter were already in the District of Utah, this would be a more efficient use of federal court resources. There are several unavoidable issues created by having an eventual trial in this case held in the District of Arizona. First, any witnesses located in the State of Utah are beyond the District of Arizona’s subpoena power for attendance at trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(2). Furthermore, a district court cannot compel a witness who is located more than 100 miles from the place – meaning the actual courthouse – where the case is to be tried, even if the witness is within the court’s district. See id. In other words, the District of 8
The only named individual who appears to be located outside of the Twin Cities is Special Fiduciary of the UEP Trust, Bruce Wisan, who counsel can represent is located in Salt Lake City. Case 3:l2-cv-08l23-HRH Document 24 Filed 09/l0/l2 Page 5 of 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 Arizona lacks subpoena power over the vast majority, if not all, of the witnesses that may be called at a trial of this matter. Even if this Court could compel these witnesses to appear, the mileage fee alone for each witness would be over $400.00
. Certainly, the inability to compel any witnesses to testify at trial presents a significant problem for all of the parties involved. On the other hand, St. George is less than 100 miles away from the Twin Cities and therefore the District of Utah would have subpoena power over all of the individuals located in the Twin Cities. This fact alone clearly demonstrates that the District of Utah is a more appropriate venue than the District of Arizona. Other factors also support the transfer of this case to the District of Utah. Both Arizona and Utah share an interest in having this case litigated “at home” as at least some of the alleged events giving rise to the Government’s claims occurred in both states. Likewise, while it is uncertain from the face of the Complaint, it is fair to assume that the aggrieved parties are residents of both Arizona and Utah and both states share an interest in providing a means of redress for its own citizens. Furthermore, the UEP Trust, TCWA and TCP are all organized under the laws of the State of Utah and thus the State of Utah, as well as its residents who may be called to serve on a jury, would have a strong interest in hearing this case locally. B. Transfer to the District of Utah is More Convenient for All Parties. Transfer of venue under section 1404 “must alleviate rather than merely shift inconvenience to another party.” Berry, at *4 (citing Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843). Here, both parties would benefit from this case been held in St. George. As discussed in Section III.A., supra, both parties will likely be unable to compel the attendance of certain defendants and witnesses at trial. While the Complaint does not identify the individuals alleged to have been injured by and/or subject to the Defendants’ allegedly unconstitutional conduct, it is apparent that 9
Calculated at the 2012 Federal mileage rate of 55.5 cents per mile multiplied by 744 miles, the shortest available round-trip distance between Hildale and Phoenix. Case 3:l2-cv-08l23-HRH Document 24 Filed 09/l0/l2 Page 6 of 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 they live in the Twin Cities or the surrounding vicinity.
These individuals will naturally be deposed and may be called to testify in an eventual trial of this matter. The aggrieved parties may wish to attend hearings or other proceedings as the case progresses. There is no doubt that it would be significantly more convenient for these people to travel to St. George, a city that is close by and a place with which they are likely quite familiar, than to make a 7-hour drive to Phoenix. Practically speaking, counsel for the United States are located in Washington, D.C. and would naturally be traveling by air to attend hearings, depositions, and ultimately trial. Given the cost to have witnesses travel to Phoenix for depositions, it is substantially more likely that counsel would instead travel to the Twin Cities area for the purposes of taking depositions and gathering evidence. The airport closest to the Twin Cities is in St. George, and there are several flights each day from Salt Lake City to St. George, obviating the need for out-of-state counsel to drive hundreds of miles to meet with and/or depose witnesses. Furthermore, any witnesses or individuals wishing or compelled to attend a hearing or other proceeding would have no choice but to drive from the Twin Cities to Phoenix. While there are ample flights between Salt Lake City and St. George, it does not appear
that there are any direct flights between St. George and Phoenix. In short, the burden of litigating this case in the District of Arizona is shared by all of the parties and the United States, like the Defendants, would benefit from this case being transferred to the District of Utah. III. CONCLUSION. Based upon the foregoing facts and law, the Hildale Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion and transfer the venue of this case to the District of Utah. 10
Naturally, only residents of the Twin Cities are within the jurisdiction of the Marshal’s Office (and therefore subject to its alleged actions). Likewise, TCWA and TCP only provide(d) utility service to individuals residing in the Twin Cities. 11
Based upon counsel’s research. Case 3:l2-cv-08l23-HRH Document 24 Filed 09/l0/l2 Page 7 of 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 Dated this 10
day of September 2012. STIRBA & ASSOCIATES By /s/ Kathleen Abke Peter Stirba R. Blake Hamilton Kathleen Abke 215 S. State St., Suite 750 Salt Lake City, UT 84110-0810 Attorneys for Defendants City of Hildale, Utah, Twin City Water Authority, and Twin City Power Case 3:l2-cv-08l23-HRH Document 24 Filed 09/l0/l2 Page 8 of 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 10
day of September 2012, I electronically transmitted the foregoing document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of Notice of Electronic filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: R. Tamar Hagler Eric W. Treene Lori K. Wagner Sean R. Keveney Jessica C. Crockett Anika Gzifa Matthew J. Donnelly United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Attorneys for Plaintiff United State of America Jeffrey C. Matura Asha Sebastian Graif Barrett & Matura, P.C. 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Attorneys for Defendant Town of Colorado City, Arizona /s/ Zachary Hoddy Case 3:l2-cv-08l23-HRH Document 24 Filed 09/l0/l2 Page 9 of 9
More From This UserUtah Man historyUniversity of Utah 'Shark Tank' meeting flier Competition With Private Sector PolicyUSTAR Audit ResponseRuling in UVU 'tough prof' case2014 Undergraduate Application2014 University of Utah Undergraduate ApplicationA Performance Audit of Health Insurance Contracting in Higher Education Report 2013-10University of Utah Kaplan Lab report U of U swim coach investigation Proposed U. invention policy revision 05-2013University of Utah proposed Skateboard Policy.050613Student Feedback Measures Order on change of venue motionSuzette Steed AffidavitSuzette Steed affidavit 10th Circuit Ruling on UEP TrustColorado City Cooke CountersuitColorado City Cooke CountersuitWisan Money Follow-up 102312Order for Shurtleff to Appear.102312Wisan Money Follow-up 102312Polygamous towns' reply brief on venue change in discrimination caseUS response on change of venue in FLDS discrimination caseUT Supreme Court UEP ruling Hildale:Colorado City DOJ Case Motion to Change Venue by Lindsay Whitehurst169 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionMotion to move from Arizona to Utah the federal civil rights lawsuit filed against Hildale and Colorado City, towns dominated my members of the polygamous sect led by Warren Jeffs.Motion to move from Arizona to Utah the federal civil rights lawsuit filed against Hildale and Colorado City, towns dominated my members of the polygamous sect led by Warren Jeffs. Categories: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedKlayman v City Pages # 141 | M.D.fla._5-13-Cv-00143_141_ORDER Denying Motion to Disqualifyby Jack RyanFilingby rickystokesnewsTHE PALMS OF PEMBROKE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. GLENCOE INSURANCE, LTD. et al complaintby ACELitigationWatchDean v. Catoe, et al - Document No. 45by Justia.comNewman v United States Ex Rel Frizzell 238 US 537 _1915by Juan del SurAnthony Jerome Harris v. Ron Champion, Warden Attorney General Steve Hargett Stephen Kaiser Bobby Boone Dan Reynolds Joy Hadwiger Michael Cody' Edward Evans, Jr., Jack Cowley Neville Massie H.N. Scott Sue Frank Denise Spears Earl Allen Jim Sorrels Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Honorable James F. Lane Honorable Gary L. Lumpkin Honorable Thomas Brett Honorable Ed Parks Honorable Charles A. Johnson Oklahoma Indigent Defense Systems (Oids) Henry A. Meyer, Iii, Also Known as Hank Meyer Richard Reeh Doug Parr Richard James Becky Pfefferbaum, M.D. Patti Palmer E. Alvin Schay, Respondents-Appelles, Oklahoma Criminal Defense and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Amicus Curiae, 36 F.3d 1105, 10th Cir. (1994)by Scribd Government DocsSYLVIA ANN DRISKELL v Homosexualsby John Schrom8:15-cv-00158 #5 - Order Dismissingby Equality Case Files4:13-cv-00410 #59by Equality Case FilesRea 0by washlawdailyIn Re Tyler, 149 U.S. 164 (1893)by Scribd Government DocsWestern Loan Co. v. Butte & Boston Min. Co., 210 U.S. 368 (1908)by Scribd Government DocsFederal Pacer Docket SDTX Davidson v. Grossmanby Robert Davidson, M.D., Ph.D.ceglia-fb-042015by nicholasdeleoncircaSnoddy v. Hawke, 10th Cir. (2001)by Scribd Government DocsScott Barr, DDS v. The Harvard Drug Group, LLC, 11th Cir. (2015)by Scribd Government Docs3:14-cv-00213 #65by Equality Case FilesNunn v. Relich, 10th Cir. (2016)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Apple Inc. et al. 1:12-cv-02826-DLC Reply in Support of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Motion by Order to Show Cause for a Stay of the Injunction Pending Appealby Chris MeadowsTaylor's v. Owing, 24 U.S. 226 (1826)by Scribd Government DocsBonney v. Chamberlain, CUMap-06-062 (Cumberland Super. Ct., 2007)by Chris BuckKuznetsov v. Clark et al - Document No. 3by Justia.com600 Elsbeth Appealby DallasObserverFacebook v Grunin Doc83 Filed 2-2-15 Facebook Reply in Support of Damagesby Joshua BrooksSTEINBUCH v. CUTLER - Document No. 37by Justia.comStaats v. Cobb, 10th Cir. (2011)by Scribd Government DocsOrder SC11-858 February 11, 2014by Neil GillespieFour Packages v. United States, 97 U.S. 404 (1878)by Scribd Government DocsSimilar to Hildale:Colorado City DOJ Case Motion to Change VenueKlayman v City Pages # 141 | M.D.fla._5-13-Cv-00143_141_ORDER Denying Motion to DisqualifyFilingTHE PALMS OF PEMBROKE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. GLENCOE INSURANCE, LTD. et al complaintDean v. Catoe, et al - Document No. 45Newman v United States Ex Rel Frizzell 238 US 537 _1915Anthony Jerome Harris v. Ron Champion, Warden Attorney General Steve Hargett Stephen Kaiser Bobby Boone Dan Reynolds Joy Hadwiger Michael Cody' Edward Evans, Jr., Jack Cowley Neville Massie H.N. Scott Sue Frank Denise Spears Earl Allen Jim Sorrels Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Honorable James F. Lane Honorable Gary L. Lumpkin Honorable Thomas Brett Honorable Ed Parks Honorable Charles A. Johnson Oklahoma Indigent Defense Systems (Oids) Henry A. Meyer, Iii, Also Known as Hank Meyer Richard Reeh Doug Parr Richard James Becky Pfefferbaum, M.D. Patti Palmer E. Alvin Schay, Respondents-Appelles, Oklahoma Criminal Defense and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Amicus Curiae, 36 F.3d 1105, 10th Cir. (1994)SYLVIA ANN DRISKELL v Homosexuals8:15-cv-00158 #5 - Order Dismissing4:13-cv-00410 #59Rea 0In Re Tyler, 149 U.S. 164 (1893)Western Loan Co. v. Butte & Boston Min. Co., 210 U.S. 368 (1908)Federal Pacer Docket SDTX Davidson v. Grossmanceglia-fb-042015Snoddy v. Hawke, 10th Cir. (2001)Scott Barr, DDS v. The Harvard Drug Group, LLC, 11th Cir. (2015)3:14-cv-00213 #65Nunn v. Relich, 10th Cir. (2016)United States v. Apple Inc. et al. 1:12-cv-02826-DLC Reply in Support of Defendant Apple Inc.'s Motion by Order to Show Cause for a Stay of the Injunction Pending AppealTaylor's v. Owing, 24 U.S. 226 (1826)Bonney v. Chamberlain, CUMap-06-062 (Cumberland Super. Ct., 2007)Kuznetsov v. Clark et al - Document No. 3600 Elsbeth AppealFacebook v Grunin Doc83 Filed 2-2-15 Facebook Reply in Support of DamagesSTEINBUCH v. CUTLER - Document No. 37Staats v. Cobb, 10th Cir. (2011)Order SC11-858 February 11, 2014Four Packages v. United States, 97 U.S. 404 (1878)Morris D. Haughton v. Kathleen M. Hawk, Director U.S. Bureau of Prisons, and Ron G. Thompson, Warden, 113 F.3d 1246, 10th Cir. (1997)