Petitioner-Appellant Francisco Garfias-Rodriguez (“Garfias”) appeals a final removal order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that determined that he was ineligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). He challenges the order on two grounds. First, he contends that our interpretation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) and 1255(i) in Acosta v. Gonzales, 439

Edward J. Allard appeals the trial court's order granting Al-Nayem International, Inc., a new trial as to damages suffered by Al-Nayem for Mr. Allard's breach of a warranty deed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(4); 9.110(a)(4). Al-Nayem cross-appeals, challenging an earlier final order involuntarily dismissing its damages case. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(g).1 We affirm as to the involuntary dismissal

In April 2010, in response to a serious problem of unauthorized immigration along the Arizona-Mexico border, the State of Arizona enacted its own immigration law enforcement policy. Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, as amended by H.B. 2162 (“S.B. 1070”), “make[s] attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona.” S.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Fred Gardner and Concerned Citizens for Little Canyon Mountain (sometimes collectively Gardner) brought suit for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701- 706, seeking to compel Defendant-Appellee United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to prohibit off-road vehicle use of Oregon’s Little Canyon Mountain ar

Appellants Trinity Park, L. P. and Classic Communities, Inc. (hereafter, collectively Trinity) are the developers of a residential housing project known as Trinity Park, which consists of 42 houses in a subdivision located in respondent City of Sunnyvale (City). The City‟s 2007 approval of the Trinity Park development was conditioned upon compliance with the City‟s below market housing ordinan

In this False Claims Act (“FCA”) appeal, relator Mary Cafasso challenges orders of the district court dismissing her qui tam complaint, rejecting her proposed amended pleading, granting summary judgment on remaining claims, and awarding attorneys’ fees.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cafasso alleges that her former employer General Dynamics C4 Syst

Plaintiff-Appellant Call Center Technologies, Inc. (“Call Center”) appeals from (1) a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Squatrito, J.) entered on February 24, 2009, that, inter alia, granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant- Appellee Interline Travel & Tour, Inc. (“Interline”) on the issue of successor liability, and (2) a memorandum of dec

¶1 The Estate of Linda J. Barclay Doyle (Plaintiff) appeals from a trial court order granting the motions to dismiss of Defendants Sprint/Nextel Corporation and Samsung Telecommunications America, L.L.C. As an accelerated appeal filed pursuant to Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.36, 12 O.S. Supp. 2010, ch. 15, app. 1, this case stands submitted without appellate briefing. After review of the record

¶1 The Defendant/Appellant, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma (Tribe), d/b/a White Loon Construction Company, seeks review of the trial court's judgment and the Court of Civil Appeals opinion in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee, Seneca Telephone Company (Seneca), in Seneca's four consolidated small claims actions asserting tort claims arising from Tribe's repeated damage to Seneca's underground telephone lines

court concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) provided a basis for federal jurisdiction and a waiver of sovereign immunity because the reclamation fee is an “internal-revenue tax.” See id. However, the court denied relief on the merits and entered summary judgment in favor of the United States. We do not reach the merits of Wyodak’s appeal. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we

This is an appeal from a take-nothing judgment that disregarded a jury's finding awarding contract damages to the plaintiff. The principal issue presented is whether the district court would have abused its discretion in excluding a plaintiff's damages evidence for failure to disclose his basic damages contentions in discovery. Finding no abuse of discretion, we will affirm the district court's ju

Liability under §1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. §1, requires a “contract, combination . . . , or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce.” The question in this putative class action is whether a §1 complaint can survive a motion to dismiss when it alleges that major telecommunications providers engaged in certain parallel conduct unfavorable to competition, absent some factual cont

This class action arises out of an allegedly unlawful attempt to collect a debt arising from an unpaid mobile phone bill. The named plaintiff, Nemesio Castro, a debtor, sued two debt collectors (collectively “the defendants”) for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“the FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., by sending letters that, he claimed, threatened to sue on an

In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether, in an action to enforce a confession of judgment clause in a guarantee of a promissory note executed outside the State of Maryland, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County had personal jurisdiction over Lenan Cappel and his wife, Pauline Cappel, (the “Cappels”), appellants, by virtue of their ownership of unimproved real property in Maryland u

Raymond Birmingham was the victim of identity theft. Verizon Wireless closed two fraudulent accounts opened in his name, but he disputed charges to his legitimate accounts and closed those as well. Verizon then reported his failure to pay the charges to the three major credit-reporting agencies—Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (Experian); Equifax; and TransUnion. Birmingham disputed these re

As numerous courts and commentators have noted, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”) has created many difficult problems of statutory interpretation, none more vexing than those arising from application of the “projected disposable income test” imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1). Under § 1325(b)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”)

The two cases that we have consolidated for decision in this opinion both deal with the responsibilities of a company with respect to a definedcontribution pension plan that it offers to its employees.

The company in each instance is Motorola, Inc., and the disputes concern employees’ retirement accounts in the Motorola 401(k) Savings Plan (the “Plan”). Bruce Howell was the original p

Appellant Loretta Thompson claims the district court1 erred in granting summary judgment in favor of her employer, CenturyTel, on her Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) interference claim. However, the record establishes that the district court did not err in determining that CenturyTel discharged Thompson for violating the company’s call-in policy. Thus, we affirm.

I.

C

Edward J. Allard appeals the trial court's order granting Al-Nayem International, Inc., a rehearing as to damages suffered by Al-Nayem for Mr. Allard's breach of a warranty deed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(4).1 Al-Nayem cross-appeals, challenging an earlier final order granting an involuntary dismissal to Mr. Allard. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A); 9.110(g). We affirm as to the involuntary d

Appellant Francis J. Farina brought this class action against various cell phone manufacturers and retailers of wireless handheld telephones. He appeals from the dismissal of his complaint on the ground that his claims are preempted by regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission. We will affirm.

I.

Farina represents a putative class consisting of all past, curren

Richard and Karen Shook, husband and wife, filed suit against Avaya, Inc., Richard‟s former employer, alleging a violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1104 and 1132. The Shooks contended that Avaya breached its fiduciary duty owed to them as participant and beneficiary under the Avaya Pension Plan through a series of misleading letters regarding

These consolidated appeals involve claims by plaintiff landowners that Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) engaged in excessive trimming of commercially productive walnut trees located under the utility‟s power lines. The first appeal is taken by plaintiffs William R. Sarale and Julie Ann Sarale from a judgment of dismissal entered by the San Joaquin Superior Court. The second appeal is taken

This multidistrict litigation involves multiple class action lawsuits arising from the billing practices of defendant AT&T Corporation. Each class of plaintiffs challenged the lawfulness of a monthly line-item charge defendant imposed on its customers to recover contributions to the federal Universal Service Fund (“USF”) required by 47 U.S.C. § 254. One subclass of plaintiffs, comprising all

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court
17 for the Southern District of New York (Paul G. Gardephe, Judge)
18 granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing
19 appellant’s hostile work environment claim. We vacate and
20 remand.
21 STEPHEN BERGSTEIN (Helen G.
22 Ullrich, on the brief), Bergstein &
23 Ullrich LLP, Chester, New York, fo

Plaintiffs Qualified Patients Association (QPA) and Lance Mowdy appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained, without leave to amend, the City of Anaheim‟s demurrer to plaintiffs‟ complaint. Asserting the primacy of state law over local law under constitutional and statutory authority (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7; Gov. Code, § 37100), plaintiffs‟ first cause of