• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 84-98 of 943 results

No. 1641 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc

Document USA v. Lacey et al, 2:18-cr-00422, No. 1641 (D.Ariz. Jul. 20, 2023)
Motion for ReconsiderationDenied
v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the district court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law”).
The question before the Supreme Court in Hansen was whether a federal law that criminalizes “encouraging or inducing” an immigrant to come or remain in the United States unlawfully violated First Amendment freedom of speech guarantees.
The court rejected Woodhull’s argument that the terms “promote” and “facilitate” could be interpreted to broadly encompass activities such as generally advocating about prostitution or giving advice to sex workers to protect them from abuse.
In that context, the court found that “promoting prostitution” proscribes “owning, managing, or operating an online platform with the intent to recruit, solicit, or find a place of business for a sex worker—that is, to aid and abet prostitution.” Id.
In short, neither Hansen nor Woodhull changes the law on pleading standards for indictments nor overturns Ninth Circuit precedent that identifies the essential elements of a Travel Act violation.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1634 ORDER as to Michael Lacey, James Larkin, Scott Spear, John Brunst, Andrew Padilla, Joye Vaught: ...

Document USA v. Lacey et al, 2:18-cr-00422, No. 1634 (D.Ariz. Jul. 13, 2023)
This matter having been set for a firm Jury Trial on August 8, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., IT IS ORDERED that the completed juror questionnaires will be reviewed at the time of the Final Pretrial Conference set for July 27, 2023 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 605, Sandra Day O’Connor United States Courthouse, 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona, 85003.
The completed questionnaires will be made available to counsel on a USB flash drive that can be picked up in the Jury Administration Office on July 21, 2023.
Counsel shall bring their copies of the questionnaires to the Final Pretrial Conference.
Counsel are required to return the USB flash drive and all copies of the questionnaires to the Courtroom Deputy no later than the last day of trial.
The Court will rule on any disputed jurors at the Final Pretrial Conference.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1631 ORDER denying "Defendant Michael Lacey's Unopposed Motion for Relief from Trial Schedule Conflict" ...

Document USA v. Lacey et al, 2:18-cr-00422, No. 1631 (D.Ariz. Jul. 7, 2023)
Trial in this matter is set to commence on August 8, 2023, and continue through November 3, 2023, with some noted recesses in between those dates.
The trial dates in this matter were set in this case after the Court consulted with counsel on availability and potential conflicts.
Mr. Cambria’s Motion for Relief is over three months past this deadline, and he offers no excuse as to why the Court was not informed of his conflict sooner.
The Court is also not persuaded that Ms. Paris is unable to assume trial responsibilities for two and a half days while Mr. Cambria attends his daughter’s wedding festivities.
1 Mr. Cambria cites to an October 3, 2018, Order granting the Government leave to appear telephonically for a motion hearing as evidence of Ms. Cook’s conflict.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1623 ORDER as to Michael Lacey, James Larkin, Scott Spear, John Brunst, Andrew Padilla, Joye Vaught: ...

Document USA v. Lacey et al, 2:18-cr-00422, No. 1623 (D.Ariz. Jun. 29, 2023)
United States of America,
Defendants have filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s June 1, 2023, Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment (Doc. 1622).
The Court will order expedited briefing on the Motion.
IT IS ORDERED that the Government shall file its response to the Motion for Reconsideration by July 3, 2023.
Defendants shall have until July 6, 2023, to file a supporting reply brief.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Silverado Management L L C Vs. Ashworth Constructi

Docket CV2016-092324, Arizona State, Maricopa County, Superior Court (June 6, 2016)
Crawford, Janice, presiding
Case TypeCivil
Plaintiff Silverado Management L L C
Defendant Mark F Ashworth
Defendant Heidi Ashworth
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

T R E F, D V Build L L C v. Classic Stone & Quartz Inc

Docket CV2016-094174, Arizona State, Maricopa County, Superior Court (May 16, 2016)
Coffey, Rodrick, presiding
Case TypeCivil
Plaintiff T R E F, D V Build L L C
Defendant Classic Stone & Quartz Inc
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 1587 ORDER denying Defendants' 1557 Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment as to James Larkin ...

Document USA v. Lacey et al, 2:18-cr-00422, No. 1587 (D.Ariz. Jun. 1, 2023)
Motion to Dismiss IndictmentDenied
Defendants Michael Lacey, James Larkin, Scott Spear, John Brunst, Andrew Padilla, and Joye Vaught (“Defendants”) have filed a Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment (Doc. 1557).
The Court has clarified, however, that “a person who actively participates in a criminal scheme knowing its extent and character intends that scheme’s commission.” Id. at 77 (citing with approval United States v. Easter, 66 F.3d 1018, 1024 (9th Cir. 1995) (correctly finding that unarmed driver of a getaway car had the requisite intent to aid and abet an armed bank robbery if he “knew” his cohorts would use weapons in carrying out the crime)).
Finally, the Court declines to reconsider its prior rulings and dismiss the SI due to double jeopardy concerns, the independent-standing money laundering counts, or on assumptions that the grand jury was erroneously instructed.
The Court rejects Defendants’ premise that the Travel Act offenses require the Government to allege the elements of aiding and abetting to satisfy Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7.
The Court has also previously rejected this assertion and identified the many specific facts tethering Defendants’ actions to their knowledge that posting the fifty ads would facilitate the business of prostitution.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

State Of Arizona

Docket CV2016-005286, Arizona State, Maricopa County, Superior Court (Apr. 20, 2016)
Smith, James, presiding
Case TypeCivil
Plaintiff State Of Arizona
In The Matter Of (IMO) 2006 B M W Vin Wbahl83576dt02366
Claimant George Babers
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 1580 ORDER granting the 1579 Motion for Extension of Time as to James Larkin (2)

Document USA v. Lacey et al, 2:18-cr-00422, No. 1580 (D.Ariz. May. 2, 2023)
Motion to Extend TimeGranted
United States of America,
For good cause showing, IT IS ORDERED Defendants James Larkin, Michael Lacey, Scott Spear, Jed Brunst, Andrew Padilla, and Joye Vaught’s Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Reply (Doc. 1579) is granted.
Defendants shall file their Reply to the pending Motion to Dismiss on or before May 12, 2023.
Dated this 2nd day of May, 2023.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1575 ORDER granting Defendant's 1574 Motion to Modify Conditions of Release as to James Larkin (2) ...

Document USA v. Lacey et al, 2:18-cr-00422, No. 1575 (D.Ariz. Apr. 18, 2023)
United States of America,
Upon consideration of Defendant James Larkin’s Unopposed Motion to Amend Conditions of Release (Doc. 1574) and finding good cause appearing,
IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion (Doc. 1574) and Defendant’s conditions of release are hereby amended to remove the location monitoring technology, condition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming all previously imposed conditions of release unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
The Court finds there is no excludable delay.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

State Of Arizona v. Blair Thomas Hawkins

Docket CR2016-113357, Arizona State, Maricopa County, Superior Court (March 25, 2016)

cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 1527

Document USA v. Lacey et al, 2:18-cr-00422, No. 1527 (D.Ariz. Mar. 9, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 191

Document GWACS Armory, LLC et al v. KE Arms, LLC et al, 4:20-cv-00341, No. 191 (N.D.Okla. Feb. 23, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1524

Document USA v. Lacey et al, 2:18-cr-00422, No. 1524 (D.Ariz. Feb. 17, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

D N A Holdings L L C, Et.Al. Vs. Titan Capital Hol

Docket CV2016-000593, Arizona State, Maricopa County, Superior Court (Jan. 26, 2016)
Viola, Danielle, presiding.

cite Cite Docket
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... >>