• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
101 results

Arevalo-Morales v. United States of America

Docket 7:24-cv-00197, Texas Western District Court (Aug. 6, 2024)
Judge David Counts, presiding
Habeas Corpus
DivisionMidland
FlagsCLOSED, PRO_SE_LAW_CLERK, T.Marroquin
Cause28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Case Type530 Habeas Corpus
Tags530 Habeas Corpus, 530 Habeas Corpus
Petitioner Jesus Arevalo-Morales
Respondent United States of America
Plaintiff Arevalo-Morales
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Employers Insurance Company of Wausau v. ProTech Roofing Systems, LLC

Docket 3:24-cv-00197, Texas Western District Court (June 7, 2024)
Judge David C Guaderrama, presiding
Insurance
DivisionEl Paso
Demand$13,000,000
Cause28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract
Case Type110 Insurance
Tags110 Insurance, 110 Insurance
Plaintiff Employers Insurance Company of Wausau
Defendant Protech Roofing Systems, LLC
Defendant ProTech Roofing Systems, LLC
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Davidson et al v. UYEDA et al

Docket 6:24-cv-00197, Texas Western District Court (Apr. 16, 2024)
Judge Alan D Albright, presiding
Administrative Procedure Act
DivisionWaco
Cause05:0706 Judicial Review of Agency Action
Case Type899 Administrative Procedure Act
Tags899 Administrative Procedure Act, 899 Administrative Procedure Act
DeadlineGary Gensler and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission answer due 4/16/2025., ) (cblc) The deadline to respond to the Amended Complaint will be April 16, 2025 (lad).
Plaintiff Erik Davidson
Plaintiff John Restivo
Plaintiff National Center for Public Policy Research
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

J.D. Abrams, LP v. The Travelers Lloyds Insurance Company

Docket 1:24-cv-00197, Texas Western District Court (Feb. 27, 2024)
Judge Susan Hightower, presiding
Insurance
DivisionAustin
Cause28:2201 Declaratory Judgement (Insurance)
Case Type110 Insurance
Tags110 Insurance, 110 Insurance
Plaintiff J.D. Abrams, LP
Defendant The Travelers Lloyds Insurance Company
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Chandan v. Life Time Fitness, Inc.

Docket 5:24-cv-00197, Texas Western District Court (Feb. 23, 2024)
Judge Xavier Rodriguez, presiding
Contract - Other
DivisionSan Antonio
Demand$1,000,000
Cause28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract
Case Type190 Contract - Other
Tags190 Contract, Contract, Civil, Other, 190 Contract, Contract, Civil, Other
DeadlineDiscovery due by 4/4/2025
DeadlineSCHEDULING ORDER, ( ADR Mediation Completed by 9/13/2024,, Amended Pleadings due by 5/3/2024,, Discovery due by 8/30/2024,, Joinder of Parties due by 5/3/2024,, Dispositive Motions due by 9/30/2024,, Jury Selection set for 4/7/2025 10:30AM before Judge Xavier Rodriguez,, Jury Trial set for 4/7/2025 10:30 AM before Judge Xavier Rodriguez,
Plaintiff Sanjiv Chandan
Defendant Life Time Fitness, Inc.
Counter Plaintiff Life Time Fitness, Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 92 ORDER DENYING 25 Motion to Stay and Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Document Davidson et al v. Gensler et al, 6:24-cv-00197, No. 92 (W.D.Tex. Oct. 24, 2024)
Motion to StayDenied
While there are elements that support granting a preliminary injunction, the totality of the factors involved in this case necessitates a denial of the requested “extraordinary remedy.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008).
Several courts in Texas have used an elevated standard regarding the balance of these factors, even stating that a preliminary injunction should not be granted “unless the party seeking it has clearly carried the burden of persuasion on all four requirements[.
The Court agrees that the Plaintiffs provides several justified arguments that possess a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” They include alleged constitutional violations, as well as whether Congress intended to grant the SEC the power to implement the CAT system in this manner.
Lottery Comm’n, 123 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 1997) (“Preliminary injunctions commonly favor the status quo and seek to maintain things in their initial condition so far as possible until after a full hearing permits final relief to be fashioned.”); see also Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 144 S. Ct. 1570, 1576, 219 L. Ed. 2d 99 (2024) (“[A preliminary injunction’s] purpose is merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.”).
Preserving the status quo and maintaining the integrity of some form of a tracking system necessitate denial of this preliminary injunction until proper relief may be fashioned through a final ruling on the merits.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 89 ORDER RESETTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING IN-PERSON/HYBRID WACO

Document Davidson et al v. Gensler et al, 6:24-cv-00197, No. 89 (W.D.Tex. Oct. 15, 2024)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is reset for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING IN-PERSON/HYBRID WACO in District Courtroom #1, on the Third Floor of the United States Courthouse, 800 Franklin Ave, Waco, TX, on Tuesday, October 15, 2024 at 09:30 AM.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of October, 2024.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 85 ORDER SETTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING for 10/15/2024 10:00 AM before Judge Alan D Albright

Document Davidson et al v. Gensler et al, 6:24-cv-00197, No. 85 (W.D.Tex. Sep. 26, 2024)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is set for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING in District Courtroom #1, on the Third Floor of the United States Courthouse, 800 Franklin Ave, Waco, TX, on Tuesday, October 15, 2024 at 10:00 AM. All parties and counsel must appear at this hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of September, 2024.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >>