National Docketing Association Home Page About Us William Mckay Calendar of Events
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
PETITIONER Vs
AMENDED (3) No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LINDA ANN WRIGHT -PETITIONER vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. -RESPONDENT(S) ON PETITION FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS LINDA ANN WRIGHT 300 Elizabeth Drive. Apartment 3108 Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania. 15220 (4121715-7733 IV. QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Was there a concerted effort, from 2007-Present to deny petitioner her Due Process, under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the U.S.? 2. If the Petitioner is not an Attorney, and several Judges consider her lacking, should they have Authorized Counsel since she produced the facts? 3. Did the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the denial of Disqualification of Judges deny the Petitioner, Due Process and Redress in not having an investigation? 4. Was the Chief Judge serving as counsel for the Named Judges? Should she have recused herself, was she involved in the naming of the Federal Building, named after one of the Judges? 5. Was Judge Owens while serving in the Texas Supreme Court, aware of Case No. 15-00214, in USDC Texas Northern District, did it affect her Decision? 6. Did the Fifth Circuit Appellate Review Board in not calling for an investigation into the facts submitted by Appellant/ Petitioner Obstructed Justice and Rule Article V, 28 U..C § 358., therefor denying Due Process, Redress? 7. Was there a concerted effort by California, Texas, and the U.S. Courts, to deny Petitioner’s Constitutional, Civil, Financial Rights as an American Citizen? 8. -
Options for Federal Judicial Screening Committees Second Edition September 2011 (2D
Options for Federal Judicial Screening Committees Second Edition September 2011 (2d. ed.) OPTIONS FOR FEDERAL JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEES: Where They Are in Place, How They Operate, and What to Consider in Establishing and Managing Them The Governance Institute, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver (IAALS), and Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution have revised the June 2010 first edition of this guide, and will continue to issue revisions periodically. It provides United States senators, other federal legislators, and their staffs with information about creating committees to screen potential judicial and law enforcement position nominees; provides them and committee members with information about committee operations; and provides others interested in federal judicial selection with information about an often- overlooked aspect of the process. It is not a “best practices” manual, in part because relatively little is known about how such committees work and even less about what seems to work best. The most current version of the guide is available at: www.du.edu/legalinstitute and www.brookings.edu/experts/wheelerr.aspx This guide was authored principally by: Russell Wheeler, president of the Governance Institute and a Visiting Fellow in the Brookings Institution’s Governance Studies program. He has served on the IAALS Board of Advisors since its creation in 2006. Rebecca Love Kourlis, executive director of IAALS. She served on Senator Ken Salazar’s screening committee and co-chaired the committee that Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet appointed to screen candidates for two District of Colorado vacancies. (Malia Reddick, director of judicial programs for the Institute, assists with ongoing revisions.) The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) is a national, independent research center dedicated to continuous improvement of the process and culture of the civil justice system. -
William Alsup
William Alsup An Oral History Conducted by Leah McGarrigle 2016-2017 William Alsup An Oral History Conducted by Leah McGarrigle 2016-2017 Copyright © 2021 William Alsup, Leah McGarrigle All rights reserved. Copyright in the manuscript and recording is owned by William Alsup and Leah McGarrigle, who have made the materials available under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC 4.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: "William Alsup: An Oral History Conducted by Leah McGarrigle, 2016-2017”. Transcription by Christine Sinnott Book design by Anna McGarrigle Judge William Alsup was born in Mississippi in 1945 and lived there until he left for Harvard Law School in 1967. At Harvard, he earned a law degree plus a master’s degree in public policy from the Kennedy School of Government. In 1971–72, he clerked for Justice William O. Douglas of the United States Supreme Court and worked with him on the Abortion Cases and the “Trees Have Standing” case, among others. Alsup and his young family then returned to Mississippi, where he practiced civil rights law, went broke, and eventually relocated to San Francisco. There he be- came a trial lawyer, a practice interrupted by two years of appel- late practice as an Assistant to the Solicitor General in the United States Department of Justice (from 1978–80). In 1999, President Bill Clinton nominated him and the Senate conirmed him as a United States District Judge in San Francisco. He took the oath of oice on August 17, 1999, and serves still on active status. -
March 3, 2015 Spring OCI 2015 Bidding
Having trouble viewing this email?Click here March 3, 2015 Spring OCI 2015 Bidding Deadlines by Session The Spring On-Campus Interview Program (OCI) has two components: on-campus interviews and resume collections. OCI offers public interest organizations, government agencies, and law firms an opportunity to interview first and second year students for summer positions and third year students for post-graduate positions. Further details about Spring OCI have been sent to you in a separate email. Alumni Directory RESUME COLLECTIONS: Professor Leticia Saucedo, UC Davis School of Law Job Search Resources Session: Spring 2015 (Research Assistant Resume Collection) Bidding Deadline: March 20 at 11:00pm Class Level: 1L, 2L Symplicity Session: Spring 2015 (San Bernardino Public Defender - Post Grad) Career News Archives Bidding Deadline: April 1 at 11pm Archive of Recorded For questions pertaining to the OCI process please contact Kim Thomas at [email protected]. CSO Presentations Walk-In Hours: Ms. JD 7th Annual Conference on Women in the 11 AM - Noon & 4 - 5 PM, Monday - Thursday; Law: Stronger Together 11 AM - 1 PM, Friday 3Ls: 12 PM - 1 PM, Tuesday - The conference is this week, Thursday March 5 thought Friday March Thursday (with Lisa Carlock); 6, 2015 at UC Hastings College of the Law. Register here. 12 PM -1 PM, Monday and Friday (with Marian Lee). Thursday, March 5th 3Ls may also access general Second Annual Ms. JD Honors Award Reception will walk-ins. recognize women who have demonstrated passion for their careers and shared that passion with other men and women. At this Need more than a few ceremony, Ms. -
The History, Content, Application and Influence of the Northern District of California’S Patent Local Rules
THE HISTORY, CONTENT, APPLICATION AND INFLUENCE OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA’S PATENT LOCAL RULES James Ware† & Brian Davy†† Abstract On December 1, 2000, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California became the first district court to promulgate rules governing the content and timing of disclosures in patent-related cases. The Northern District’s conception of Patent Local Rules finds its origins in the concerns during the 1980’s and 1990’s, when the increasing cost and expense of civil litigation came under increasing attack from commentators and all three branches of the federal government. Despite efforts to improve the efficiency of civil litigation generally, patent litigation proved particularly burdensome on litigants and the courts. The Supreme Court’s decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. only exacerbated this situation. The Northern District’s Patent Local Rules are specifically tailored to address the unique challenges that arise during patent litigation, particularly during the pretrial discovery process. The Rules require the patentee and the accused infringer to set forth detailed infringement and invalidity theories early in the case. The Rules also govern the content and timing of disclosures related to the claim construction hearing, an event unique to patent litigation that is often case-dispositive. The Northern District’s Patent Local Rules have been expressly endorsed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Rules have also proven highly influential in other judicial districts, as evidenced by the adoption of substantially similar rules in a growing number of district courts. Substantive differences do exist, however, between the patent local rules of various district courts. -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The
Case 2:17-cv-01826-TSZ Document 153 Filed 06/11/20 Page 1 of 171 1 THE HONORABLE THOMAS S. ZILLY 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 10 KEVIN PINE, individually and on behalf Case No. 17-cv-1826 11 of all others similarly situated, DECLARATION OF DANIEL M. 12 Plaintiff, HUTCHINSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS TO THE 14 A PLACE FOR MOM, INC., a Delaware PLAINTIFFS corporation, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF DANIEL M. HUTCHINSON LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP Case No. 17-cv-1826 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor 1836300.2 San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Tel. 415.956.1000 • Fax 415.956.1008 Case 2:17-cv-01826-TSZ Document 153 Filed 06/11/20 Page 2 of 171 1 I, Daniel M. Hutchinson, declare as follows: 2 1. I am a partner in of the law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP 3 (“LCHB”), co-counsel of record for Plaintiff in this matter. 4 2. I am admitted to practice pro hac vice before this Court and am a member in good 5 standing of the bar of the State of California; the United States District Court for the Central, 6 Northern, and Southern Districts of California; the United States District Court for the Eastern 7 District of Wisconsin; and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and 8 Eleventh Circuits. -
Lawyer NEW DEAN TAKES CHARGE
Stanford FALL 2004 FALL Lawyer NEW DEAN TAKES CHARGE Larry D. Kramer brings fresh ideas, lots of energy, and a willingness to stir things up a bit. Remember Stanford... F rom his family’s apricot orchard in Los Altos Hills, young Thomas Hawley could see Hoover Tower and hear the cheers in Stanford Stadium. “In those days my heroes were John Brodie and Chuck Taylor,” he says, “and my most prized possessions were Big Game programs.” Thomas transferred from Wesleyan University to Stanford as a junior in and two years later enrolled in the Law School, where he met John Kaplan. “I took every course Professor Kaplan taught,” says Thomas. “He was a brilliant, often outrageous teacher, who employed humor in an attempt to drive the law into our not always receptive minds.” In choosing law, Thomas followed in the footsteps of his father, Melvin Hawley (L.L.B. ’), and both grandfathers. “I would have preferred to be a professional quarterback or an opera singer,” he says (he fell in love with opera while at Stanford-in-Italy), “and I might well have done so but for a complete lack of talent.” An estate planning attorney on the Monterey Peninsula, Thomas has advised hundreds of families how to make tax-wise decisions concerning the distribution of their estates. When he decided the time had come to sell his rustic Carmel cottage, he took his own advice and put the property in a charitable remainder trust instead, avoiding the capital gains tax he otherwise would have paid upon sale. When the trust terminates, one-half of it will go to Stanford Law School. -
Northern District of California Northern District of California Lawyer
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LAWYER REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT 2017-2018 Submitted by Miriam Kim (Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP) and Elizabeth Pipkin (McManis Faulkner), 2018-2019 Committee Co-Chairs. I. Introduction: This report will cover judicial developments in the Northern District since August 2017, our District Conference, and other activities of the Lawyer Representative Committee during that time. II. Judicial Appointments and Retirements A. The Northern District continues to enjoy its full complement of active district- court judges. Together with the continued strong contributions of our five senior-status judges and 12 full- time magistrate judges, the District is well prepared to serve the interest of justice in our federal system. B. In August 2017, Chief Judge Emeritus Thelton Henderson took inactive status after serving 37 years on the bench, including his 7-year term as the court’s Chief Judge from 1990 to 1997. The court held a retirement celebration at the San Francisco courthouse, in the Ceremonial Courtroom, which was renamed in his honor as the Thelton E. Henderson Ceremonial Courtroom. C. In June 2017, Bankruptcy Judge Alan Jaroslovsky retired. He served over 30 years on the Bankruptcy Court, including his tenure as Chief Bankruptcy Judge from 2011 to 2014. D. In November 2017, Magistrate Judge Vadas retired after serving in the Eureka Division for 13 years. The court appointed Robert Illman to that magistrate-judge position. E. In June 2018, Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd will retire after 16 years on the bench in the San Jose Division. The court has selected Virginia K. DeMarchi, formerly a partner at the law firm of Fenwick & West LLP, to join the Northern District bench as a Magistrate Judge upon Judge Lloyd’s retirement. -
2021-02-01 Litigation Rules Update Summaries
Litigation Rules Update Summaries Update Summary February 01, 2021: The following new Rules Set was created: SDNY Standing Order ‐‐ Judge John P. Cronan The following Rules Sets were renamed: No Rules Sets were renamed. The following Rules Sets were removed: No Rules Sets were removed. The following Rules Sets were reactivated: No Rules Sets were reactivated. The following Rules Sets were revised: Federal Rules of Bankruptcy USDC ‐‐ M.D. Alabama CA ‐‐ Amador County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Fresno County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Inyo County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Monterey County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Nevada County Superior Court CA ‐‐ San Benito County Superior Court CA ‐‐ San Joaquin County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Santa Clara County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Santa Cruz County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Shasta County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Solano County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Stanislaus County Superior Courts CA ‐‐ Ventura County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Yolo County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Fresno County Superior Court ‐ Family CA ‐‐ Santa Clara County Superior Court ‐ Family CA ‐‐ Ventura County Superior Court ‐ Family DC ‐‐ Rules of Civil Procedure USBC ‐‐ M.D. Florida USBC ‐‐ N.D. Illinois USBC ‐‐ District of Massachusetts USBC ‐‐ E.D. Michigan MI ‐‐ 46th Circuit Court (Otsego, Kalkaska, and Crawford) MO ‐‐ Thirty‐First Judicial Circuit (Greene) NE ‐‐ Uniform County Court Rules SDNY Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Ronnie Abrams SDNY Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Richard M. Berman SDNY Standing Order ‐‐ Judge P. Kevin Castel SDNY Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Kenneth M. Karas SDNY Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Edgardo Ramos USBC ‐‐ S.D. New York NY Appellate Division, Rules of Practice NY ‐‐ Appellate Division, First Department NY ‐‐ Appellate Division, Second Department NY ‐‐ Appellate Division, Third Department NY ‐‐ Appellate Division, Fourth Department USDC ‐‐ District of North Dakota USDC ‐‐ N.D. -
Administration of Barack Obama, 2014 Nominations Submitted to The
Administration of Barack Obama, 2014 Nominations Submitted to the Senate November 21, 2014 The following list does not include promotions of members of the Uniformed Services, nominations to the Service Academies, or nominations of Foreign Service Officers. Submitted January 6 Jill A. Pryor, of Georgia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the 11th Circuit, vice Stanley F. Birch, Jr., retired. Carolyn B. McHugh, of Utah, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the 10th Circuit, vice Michael R. Murphy, retired. Michelle T. Friedland, of California, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, vice Raymond C. Fisher, retired. Nancy L. Moritz, of Kansas, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the 10th Circuit, vice Deanell Reece Tacha, retired. John B. Owens, of California, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, vice Stephen S. Trott, retired. David Jeremiah Barron, of Massachusetts, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, vice Michael Boudin, retired. Robin S. Rosenbaum, of Florida, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the 11th Circuit, vice Rosemary Barkett, resigned. Julie E. Carnes, of Georgia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the 11th Circuit, vice James Larry Edmondson, retired. Gregg Jeffrey Costa, of Texas, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, vice Fortunato P. Benavides, retired. Rosemary Márquez, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona, vice Frank R. Zapata, retired. Pamela L. Reeves, of Tennessee, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, vice Thomas W. Phillips, retiring. -
(“ERISA”) Decisions As They Were Reported on Westlaw Between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016
DRAFT * This document is a case summary compilation of select Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) decisions as they were reported on Westlaw between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016. Nothing in this document constitutes legal advice. Case summaries prepared by Michelle L. Roberts, Partner, Roberts Bartolic LLP, 1050 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 105, Alameda, CA 94501. © Roberts Bartolic LLP I. Attorneys’ Fees .................................................................................................................. 11 A. First Circuit ..................................................................................................................................... 11 B. Second Circuit ................................................................................................................................. 11 C. Third Circuit .................................................................................................................................... 14 D. Fourth Circuit .................................................................................................................................. 14 E. Fifth Circuit ..................................................................................................................................... 15 F. Sixth Circuit .................................................................................................................................... 16 G. Seventh Circuit ............................................................................................................................... -
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case No
Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 163 Filed 07/02/21 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:20213 1 Julian Burns King (Bar No. 298617) [email protected] 2 Elliot J. Siegel (Bar No. 286798) 3 [email protected] KING & SIEGEL LLP 4 724 S. Spring Street, Ste. 201 5 Los Angeles, California 90014 Telephone: (213) 465-4802 6 Facsimile: (213) 465-4803 7 8 Daniel Hutchinson (Bar No. 239458) [email protected] 9 Lin Y. Chan (Bar No. 255027) 10 [email protected] LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & 11 BERNSTEIN, LLP 12 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 13 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 Marcie Le and Karen Dao, individu- Case No. 8:18-cv-01548-DOC (ADSx) ally and on behalf of all others similarly 19 Hon. David O. Carter situated, 20 Special Master Hon. Jay C. Gandhi (Ret.) Plaintiffs, 21 v. PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF 22 Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation; MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR 23 Walgreen Pharmacy Services Mid- west, LLC, an Illinois limited liability FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS 24 company; and Walgreens Boots Alli- ACTION SETTLEMENT 25 ance, a Delaware corporation, [Declarations of Elliot J. Siegel, Daniel Defendants. M. Hutchinson, and Bryan Valdez; 26 [Proposed] Order filed concurrently] 27 Hearing Date: August 2, 2021 Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01548 Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 163 Filed 07/02/21 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:20214 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on August 2, 2021 at 8:30 a.m.