• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 39-53 of 2,774 results

No. 552 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WHITTAKER CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND AND ...

Document Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency v. Whittaker Corporation et al, 2:18-cv-06825, No. 552 (C.D.Cal. Jul. 27, 2022)
Pending before the Court is the Motion of Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (“SCV Water”) and Defendant and Cross-Claimant Whittaker Corporation (“Whittaker”) for Approval of Supersedeas Bond and Temporary Stay (“Stipulated Motion”).
Having considered the Application and supporting documents, and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED.
The bond attached as Exhibit 2 to the Stipulated Motion, Dkt. No. 543-2, is approved; 2.
Execution of the judgment dated June 28, 2022, Dkt. 529, shall be stayed, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b), effective until post-trial proceedings and any subsequent appeal are concluded.
Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. United States District Judge
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 542 ORDER DENYING JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING THE POST-JUDGMENT BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE 541 ...

Document Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency v. Whittaker Corporation et al, 2:18-cv-06825, No. 542 (C.D.Cal. Jul. 19, 2022)
Plaintiff, vs. WHITTAKER CORPORATION and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Defendant.
Date Action Filed: August 8, 2018 Trial Date: November 15, 2021 The parties have submitted a joint stipulation to extend the deadlines for post-judgment briefing.
The issues in this case have been heavily briefed, and the parties have not justified the need for a substantial extension.
The opening and opposition briefs shall be limited to 20 pages, and the replies shall be limited to 10 pages.
Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. United States District Judge
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 529 JUDGMENT by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: Plaintiff shall recover from Defendant a judgment ...

Document Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency v. Whittaker Corporation et al, 2:18-cv-06825, No. 529 (C.D.Cal. Jun. 28, 2022)
Motion for Judgment
Pursuant to the jury’s verdict, Dkt. No. 475, and the Court’s ruling on the Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL), Dkt. No. 523, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency and against Defendant Whittaker Corporation on Plaintiff’s claims for negligence and public nuisance in the amount of $7 million in past damages and $68.3 million in reasonable restoration or repair costs (subject to offset as stated below);
The judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the total amount of $75.3 million is reduced by (a) $2.9 million for the settlement payment Plaintiff received from Saugus Industrial Center, LLC (SIC) (as an offset), Dkt. No. 248, and (b) $7.53 million for the 10% fault allocation made by the jury (as an offset);1 and 1 The jury assigned the following percentage of fault on Plaintiff’s negligence claim: 60% for Defendant; 30% for SIC; and 10% for Plaintiff.
The offset for SIC, however, Plaintiff is awarded prejudgment interest on its negligence and public
For the reasons set forth in the Court’s separate Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Dkt. No. 524, it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 524 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW signed by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: The Court ...

Document Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency v. Whittaker Corporation et al, 2:18-cv-06825, No. 524 (C.D.Cal. Jun. 6, 2022)
... for showing imminent and substantial endangerment because it has “presented evidence that dangerous levels of VOCs are migrating toward drinking wells that will pose a risk to Plaintiff’s customers if left unabated, and that none ...
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Compucom Systems Inc et al v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Docket 3:11-cv-02948, Texas Northern District Court (Mar. 10, 2015)
Chief Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn, presiding
Anti-Trust
DivisionDallas
FlagsCLOSED, LEAD
Cause15:1 Antitrust Litigation
Case Type410 Anti-Trust
Tags410 Anti-Trust, 410 Anti-Trust
Compucom Systems Inc
AU Optronics Corporation
Defendant NEC Corporation
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

MetroPCS Wireless Inc v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Docket 3:10-cv-02576, Texas Northern District Court (Mar. 10, 2015)
Jeffrey N. Luthi for the MDL Panel, presiding
Anti-Trust
DemandPlaintiff
Cause15:1 Antitrust Litigation
Case Type410 Anti-Trust
Tags410 Anti-Trust, 410 Anti-Trust
Special Master Martin Quinn
Plaintiff MetroPCS Wireless Inc
Defendant AU Optronics Corporation
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Goleta Water District et al vs Slippery Rock Ranch LLC

Docket 1487005, California State, Santa Barbara County, Superior Court (Feb. 13, 2015)
Colleen K Sterne, Gustavo E Lavayen, James E Herman, Pauline Maxwell, Thomas P Anderle, presiding
02/17/2022
02/17/2022 Opposition, Filed - OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR UNILATERAL MODIFICATION RE: THE NONEXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF AND CROSS-MOTION FOR PARITY
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE

Document JEFFREY WON LONG YOUNG ET AL VS. CEP AMERICA, LLC ET AL, CGC-16-554619, No. 07958901 (California State, San Francisco County, Superior Court Jan. 24, 2022)
Mf Mf Young, et al. v. CEP America, LLC, et al. CGC-16-554619 Order Denying Renewed and Unopposed Motion to Approve Proposed PAGA Settlement and Release Agreement Without Prejudice —\oo~nN—&WwWN
(/d., Ex. F.) Plaintiff Jaramillo settled his individual Young, et al. v. CEP America, LLC, et al. CGC-16-554619 Order Denying Renewed and Unopposed Motion to Approve Proposed PAGASettlement and Release Agreement Without Prejudice
The O’Connor Court explained: It is important to note that whereplaintiffs bring a PAGA representative claim, they take on a special responsibility to their fellow aggrieved workers whoare effectively bound by any judgment.
While the guideposts for fairness have not been clearly marked off, the use of a PAGAsettlement to extract a greater individual settlement than would otherwise be available seemsto fall within the scope of the potential unfairness that judicial review is intended to guard against.
Judge of the Superior Court Young, et al. v. CEP America, LLC,et al. CGC-16-554619 Order Denying Renewed and Unopposed Motion to Approve Proposed PAGASettlement and Release Agreement Without Prejudice
cite Cite Document
Analyze

P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation et al v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Docket 1:14-cv-05827, New York Eastern District Court (Oct. 6, 2014)
Judge Joan M. Azrack, presiding, Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown
Anti-Trust
DivisionBrooklyn
FlagsCLOSED, CONSOLIDATED, SM
DemandPlaintiff
Cause15:1 Antitrust Litigation
Case Type410 Anti-Trust
Tags410 Anti-Trust, 410 Anti-Trust
Special Master Martin Quinn
Plaintiff P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation
Plaintiff Marta Cooperative of America, Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Neco Alliance LLC v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Docket 1:14-cv-05831, New York Eastern District Court (Oct. 6, 2014)
Judge Joan M. Azrack, presiding, Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown
Anti-Trust
DivisionBrooklyn
FlagsCLOSED, CONSOLIDATED
DemandPlaintiff
Cause15:1 Antitrust Litigation
Case Type410 Anti-Trust
Tags410 Anti-Trust, 410 Anti-Trust
Plaintiff Neco Alliance LLC
Defendant AU Optronics Corporation
Defendant AU Optronics Corporation America
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Schultze Agency Services, LLC v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Docket 2:14-cv-05875, New York Eastern District Court (Oct. 6, 2014)
Judge Joan M. Azrack, presiding, Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown
Anti-Trust
DivisionCentral Islip
FlagsCLOSED, CONSOLIDATED, SM
DemandPlaintiff
Cause15:1 Antitrust Litigation
Case Type410 Anti-Trust
Tags410 Anti-Trust, 410 Anti-Trust
Special Master Martin Quinn
Plaintiff Schultze Agency Services, LLC
Defendant AU Optronics Corporation America
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 384

Document Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency v. Whittaker Corporation et al, 2:18-cv-06825, No. 384 (C.D.Cal. Sep. 5, 2021)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 369

Document Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency v. Whittaker Corporation et al, 2:18-cv-06825, No. 369 (C.D.Cal. Aug. 29, 2021)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 367

Document Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency v. Whittaker Corporation et al, 2:18-cv-06825, No. 367 (C.D.Cal. Aug. 26, 2021)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 07643038

Document JEFFREY WON LONG YOUNG ET AL VS. CEP AMERICA, LLC ET AL, CGC-16-554619, No. 07643038 (California State, San Francisco County, Superior Court May. 10, 2021)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... >>