• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 69-83 of 118 results

No. 297 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 253 Sealed Motion; granting in part and ...

Document Gibson et al v. Credit Suisse Securities USA, LLC et al, 1:10-cv-00001, No. 297 (D.Idaho Oct. 26, 2012)
FROEHLICH, MONIQUE LEFLEUR, and GRIFFEN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, each individually, and on behalf of PROPOSED Plaintiff CLASS Members of Tamarack Resort, Yellowstone Club, Lake Las Vegas and Ginn Sur Mer, Case No.: 1:10 CV 001-EJL-REB
The Defendants further assert that the Plaintiffs relied heavily on the unsigned Miller Declaration in their opposition to the Motion to Dismiss both in writing and orally at the hearing before Magistrate Judge Bush.
Much of Mr. Miller’s testimony during that deposition, Cushman & Wakefield maintain, relates to the statements made in his signed Affidavit and those attributed to him in the unsigned Declaration both of which are at the heart of the Motion to Reconsider.
Reconsideration is appropriate here, Cushman & Wakefield argue, because error must be corrected, judicial efficiency demands it, there is newly discovered evidence, and it would be manifestly unjust to not do so.
Conclusion The Court having reviewed all of the record, the parties’ arguments, and the many filings made concerning this matter, has determined reconsideration of its prior Order is appropriate in this case given the circumstances surrounding the Declaration and Affidavit of Mr. Miller.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Miller v. Hewlett Packard Co

Docket 1:05-cv-00111, Idaho District Court (Mar. 21, 2005)
Judge B Lynn Winmill, presiding
Contract - Other
DivisionBoise (Southern)
FlagsLC3
Demand$300,000
Cause28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Case Type190 Contract - Other
Tags190 Contract, Contract, Civil, Other, 190 Contract, Contract, Civil, Other
Plaintiff Jennifer A Miller
Plaintiff Sherry Caito
Plaintiff Timothy L Taddicken
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 210 ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; granting in part and denying in part 134 Motion to Dismiss; ...

Document Gibson et al v. Credit Suisse Securities USA, LLC et al, 1:10-cv-00001, No. 210 (D.Idaho Mar. 31, 2012)
Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer)Partial
FROEHLICH, MONIQUE LEFLEUR, and GRIFFEN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, each individually, and on behalf of PROPOSED Plaintiff CLASS Members of Tamarack Resort, Yellowstone Club, Lake Las Vegas and Ginn Sur Mer, Case No.: 1:10 CV 001-EJL-REB
Credit Suisse likewise cites error in upholding this claim against it arguing Plaintiffs have failed to attach any contract that supposedly required the developers to construct and maintain the allegedly promised resort amenities.
The allegations, if true, make up the elements of a tortious interference claim as they state the existence of a contract, known to both Defendants, intentionally interfered with by Defendants’ actions in the Loan to Own scheme, and, as a result, injury to Plaintiffs.
Plaintiff Gibson’s reliance is found in her not selling the property at a time when she could have made a large profit based on Credit Suisse’s fraudulent disclosure and nondisclousure in its June 1, 2006 press release regarding its loan to Tamarack.
In considering the Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation Claims, the Report distinguished between those individual Plaintiffs who were able to allege the element of reliance given when their property was purchased in relation to the loans issued by Credit Suisse.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

McClendon v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

Docket 1:05-cv-00087, Idaho District Court (Mar. 9, 2005)
B. Lynn Winmill, presiding, Mikel H. Williams
Employee Retirement (ERISA)
Log in to see more
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 197 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 130 Motion to Amend/Correct

Document Gibson et al v. Credit Suisse Securities USA, LLC et al, 1:10-cv-00001, No. 197 (D.Idaho Feb. 17, 2012)
... and, thus, allegedly transacting away the inevitable financial consequences of default, Plaintiffs further contend that Credit Suisse intentionally positioned itself to take over the MPCs as a result of the subsequent, but nonetheless ...
Nonetheless, the Court concludes that, at this juncture of the lawsuit, Plaintiffs should not be forever precluded from asserting a breach of fiduciary duty claim without first seeking reconsideration of Judge Lodge’s March 31, 2011 Order ...
Nonetheless, a dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is beyond doubt that the complaint “could not be saved by any amendment.” Krainski v. Nevada ex rel.
None of the Plaintiffs allege to have ever spoken to Credit Suisse or learned anything about the loan from Credit Suisse.
... Suisse Mot. to Dismiss, p. 7 (Docket No. 152)), Plaintiffs cite only Plaintiff Gibson’s and Plaintiff LaFleur’s Tamarack transactions and how, although purchasing their properties before Credit Suisse’s June 1, 2006 loan, they nonetheless ...
Even though these two arguments are unavailing for Cushman & Wakefield, the undersigned nonetheless recommends dismissal of Plaintiffs’ fraud claim against Cushman and Wakefield consistent with its recommendation relative to ...
Therefore, while the undersigned still has reservations concerning Plaintiffs’ ability to ultimately prove their tortious interference with contractual relations claim against Cushman & Wakefield, Plaintiffs have nonetheless stated a plausible ...
However, they nonetheless succeed in discussing the statutory bases for Defendants’ alleged duties and, in doing so, define the “alleged sources of negligence-based duties” that previously troubled Judge Lodge in his March 31, 2011 ...
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

No. 126 ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS;Granting in part and ...

Document Gibson et al v. Credit Suisse Securities USA, LLC et al, 1:10-cv-00001, No. 126 (D.Idaho Mar. 31, 2011)
Defendants, Credit Suisse and Cushman & Wakefield, each also filed objections generally disputing the Report’s conclusions regarding Plaintiffs’ Article III standing, proximate cause, and the viability of Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and conspiracy.2 (Dkt. Nos. 109, 110.)
3 On May 12, 2009 and August 16, 201, the Honorable Ralph B. Kirscher, United States Bankruptcy Judge, District of Montana, issued decisions in the case of In re Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC.
Credit Suisse takes issue with the Report’s conclusion that the Plaintiffs’ damages are not “reflective only of a sour economy,” and argue the Report’s analysis of the lack of causation on the RICO Claim is inconsistent with the Article III standing discussion.
Plaintiffs contend Credit Suisse “marketed its loans to the developers with the understanding and full knowledge that the projects would, in turn, be marketed to the class members based upon the allegedly fraudulent and illegal appraisals.” (Dkt. No. 116, pp.
(Dkt. No. 108, pp. 27-32) (“there are no specifics relative to the (mis)representations made to Plaintiffs themselves....”) The Report then referenced and incorporated its discussion of Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement in its analysis of the Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation Claims as to both Defendants.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 106 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 51 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by Credit ...

Document Gibson et al v. Credit Suisse Securities USA, LLC et al, 1:10-cv-00001, No. 106 (D.Idaho Feb. 17, 2011)
Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer)
... to Plaintiffs, this deliberate strategy generated tens of millions of dollars in upfront “loan fees” for Credit Suisse, while conveniently positioning Credit Suisse to take over the developments as a result of the subsequent, but nonetheless ...
Nonetheless, a dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is beyond doubt that the complaint “could not be saved by any amendment.” See Harris v. Amgen, Inc., 573 F.3d 728, 737 (9th Cir. 2009) (issued two months after ...
While not plentiful, Plaintiffs’ allegations against Cushman & Wakefield nonetheless paint a picture of a necessary participant in Credit Suisse’s Loan to Own Scheme - one that improperly appraised the involved resorts in such a way as ...
Alternatively, even when assuming the “Credit Suisse Cayman Island Branch” is not a separate, legal entity, Plaintiffs assert that it nonetheless constitutes an association-in-fact among the Defendants to perform the illegal Loan to Own ...
The existing record, coupled with the deference lent to Plaintiffs’ pleadings at this preliminary juncture, suggest that any alleged misrepresentations (be it Cushman & Wakefield’s appraisals themselves or separate, but nonetheless ...
But see supra at pp. 39-40 (recommending that Plaintiffs’ common law fraud claim be dismissed nonetheless, without prejudice, to allow Plaintiffs opportunity to include level of temporal specificity needed to even preliminarily assume ...
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

No. 130 MEMORANDUM OPINION RE: Attorney Fees and Order for Entry of Judgment, re 120 MOTION for Attorney ...

Document Beach et al v. J.D. Lumber, Inc. et al, 2:08-cv-00416, No. 130 (D.Idaho Oct. 5, 2010)
Motion for Attorney Fees
The Plaintiffs were required to pursue formal pretrial discovery procedures and motions, rather than having the relevant information furnished without demand as is the intent of F. R. Civ.
The Defendant also contends that the Plaintiffs have failed to reduce the time spent by their attorneys on claims presented in the complaints that were dismissed, either voluntarily or by the court on summary judgement citing McCown v. City of Fontana, 565 F. 3d 1097, 1103 (9 Cir. 2009).
The local attorney is required be named on and sign all pleadings and personally appear on “all matters heard and tried.” The court finds Mr. Huntley’s billed time of 47.4 hours to be reasonable.
The fact that the hourly rates awarded to Plaintiffs’ counsel is somewhat higher than that billed by the attorneys for the Defendant does not adversely reflect upon the quality of legal skills evidenced by Messrs. Brian Julian and Stephen Adams.
Based upon the foregoing, the court determines the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorney fees in the amount of $179,547, computed as follows: Mel Crawford $ 88,495 David Whedbee $ 73,280 Robert Huntley $ 13,035 Julie Gambino (paralegal) $ 4,057 La Rond Baker (law graduate) $ 680 $179,547 Total
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 122 MEMORANDUM OPINION: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW that plas are entitled to judgment ...

Document Beach et al v. J.D. Lumber, Inc. et al, 2:08-cv-00416, No. 122 (D.Idaho Aug. 24, 2010)
The Plaintiffs appeared in person and with their attorneys Mel Crawford and David Whedbee of MacDonald, Hoague, & Bayless , Seattle, Washington, appearingpro hac vice, together with Robert Huntley, Esq. of Boise, Idaho.
The court has also found that the true and factual reason for the early layoff of 40 employees during the 60 day WARN period was the sale and closing of the mill, rather than “unforseen business circumstances,” as referenced in 29 U.S.C. § 2l02(b)(2)(A).
The court has determined that the termination of the 40 Plaintiffs on August 22, 2008 was by reason of the Defendant’s failure to obtain and maintain an adequate supply of logs and that this was in contemplation of the closing of the mill.
The rule of law also recognizes that the time and monies expended in the establishment of the amount of reasonable attorney fees may, in appropriate cases, also be recovered by the prevailing party.
In the event the parties are unable to agree on the amount of attorney fees to be awarded, the Plaintiffs shall file their application and supporting documentation within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 108 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 88 Motion in Limine

Document Beach et al v. J.D. Lumber, Inc. et al, 2:08-cv-00416, No. 108 (D.Idaho Jul. 22, 2010)
Motion in LimineDenied
ll Before the court is the Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine (Clerks Record 88) seeking to limit evidence and testimony regarding the “unforeseen business circumstances” 14 defense proffered by the Defendant and to exclude the testimony of Michael Boeck.
In effect, the Plaintiffs claim that once a WARN ACT (29 U.S.C. 2102(a)) Notice 16 of closing is given, an employer is precluded from laying off employees during the 60 17 day WARN period due to “unforeseen business circumstances” as specified in 29 U.S.C. 18 2102(b)(2)(A).
_ The Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine (C.R.
The Clerk shall enter this Order and furnish copies to counsel.
Dated this 22"“ day of July, 2010.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 88

Document Gibson et al v. Credit Suisse Securities USA, LLC et al, 1:10-cv-00001, No. 88 (D.Idaho Jun. 1, 2010)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 73

Document Gibson et al v. Credit Suisse Securities USA, LLC et al, 1:10-cv-00001, No. 73 (D.Idaho May. 11, 2010)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 284

Document Strolberg, et al v. Akal Security, Inc., et al, 1:03-cv-00004, No. 284 (D.Idaho Mar. 25, 2010)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 75 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Re: 56 Report and Recommendations; granting in part ...

Document Beach et al v. J.D. Lumber, Inc. et al, 2:08-cv-00416, No. 75 (D.Idaho Feb. 23, 2010)
Background The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the factual background as set forth in the Report and Recommendation: The Plaintiffs’ claims begin with the Worker Readjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN Act”), a federal statute that requires employers to provide affected employees with 60 days notice prior to a plant closure or mass layoff (hereafter, the “Notice Period”).
Ultimately, Riley Creek proposed to purchase certain assets of JD Lumber, including the milling facility, plant, and equipment.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - Page 3 10ORDERS\beach_rnr Lumber and Idaho Forest Group entered into a Master Log Purchase Agreement.
The Magistrate Judge found that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the alleged log shortage was a business circumstance that was reasonably foreseeable when the August 2, 2008 WARN Act notices were provided to all 220 employees.
This Court agrees a trial is required to decide if the reasonable unforeseen business circumstances alleged by Defendants and disputed by Plaintiffs allow for a reduction in the notification period under 29 U.S.C. § 2102(b)(2)(A) and an exception to liability under the WARN Act.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Strolberg, et al v. Akal Security, Inc., et al

Docket 1:03-cv-00004, Idaho District Court (Jan. 3, 2003)
Judge David O. Carter, presiding
Labor - Other
02/22/2005
02/22/2005 224 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Ron Strolberg-None requested re 222 Notice of Appeal, (dkh, )
cite Cite Docket
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>