IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO: 2015-TS ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO: 2015-TS ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED"

Transcription

1 E-Filed Document Jun :16: CA Pages: 24 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO: 2015-TS JIMI MOSELY, Individually and as Proposed Guardian of the Estate of GERBORIA MAYFIELD, and on behalf of THE HEIRS AND WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF GERBORIA MONIQUE MAYFIELD, DECEASED APPELLANTS VS. GREGORY W. CHILDREY, M.D. APPELLEE BRIEF OF APPELLEE GREGORY W. CHILDREY, M.D. ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOWNDES COUNTY ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC J. Gordon Flowers, MS Bar No Scott F. Singley, MS Bar No Post Office Box 7520 Columbus, Mississippi Telephone: (662) Facsimile: (662) Lauren O. Lawhorn, MS Bar No Post Office Drawer 119 Jackson, MS Telephone: (601) Facsimile: (601) Counsel for Gregory W. Childrey, M.D

2 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO: 2015-TS JIMI MOSELY, Individually and as Proposed Guardian of the Estate of GERBORIA MAYFIELD, and on behalf of THE HEIRS AND WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF GERBORIA MONIQUE MAYFIELD, DECEASED APPELLANTS VS. GREGORY W. CHILDREY, M.D. APPELLEE CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons have an interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that this Court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal. 1. Jimi Mosely, Appellant; 2. Carlos E. Moore, Darryl A. Wilson, Tangela L. Hollis, Nicole Clinkscales, Counsel for Appellant; 3. Gregory W. Childrey, M.D., Appellee; 4. J. Gordon Flowers, Scott F. Singley, Lauren O. Lawhorn, Counsel for Appellee; 5. Honorable Lee J. Howard, Circuit Court Judge of Lowndes County. SO CERTIFIED, this the 30th day of June, /s/ Lauren O. Lawhorn Lauren O. Lawhorn Counsel for Gregory W. Childrey, M.D ii

3 STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Given the ample case law supporting the Circuit Court s orders appealed from in this matter, Dr. Childrey believes oral argument is not necessary. 1 1 Only pre-trial orders are challenged on appeal. No trial rulings are questioned iii

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS... ii STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS... iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... v STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE... 1 I. Nature of the Case...1 II. Course of Proceedings in the Court Below...2 III. Statement of Facts...5 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT... 6 ARGUMENT... 6 I. Standard of Review...6 a. Motions to Amend....6 b. Motions to Consolidate....7 II. The Circuit Court did not Abuse its Discretion in Denying Mosely's Motions Because Mosely's Conduct Precipitated the Court's Rulings...7 a. Mosely Unduly Delayed and Acted with Dilatory Motive in Bringing Her Motions, and Repeatedly Failed to Cure Her Deficiencies....7 b. The Relief Requested by Mosely would have Prejudiced Dr. Childrey and Not Served the Ends of Justice c. Mosely's Motions were Futile CONCLUSION...17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE iv

5 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Andrews v. Arceo, 988 So. 2d 399 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008)...15 Arceo v. Tolliver, 19 So. 3d 67 (Miss. 2009)...15, 16 Carpenter v. Kenneth Thompson Builder, Inc., 186 So. 3d 820 (Miss. 2014)...14 Dear v. Jackson State Univ WL (S.D. Miss. Sept. 10, 2008)...12, 13 Doe v. Miss. Blood Serv., Inc., 704 So. 2d 1016 (Miss. 1997)...16 Estate of McLemore v. McLemore, 63 So. 3d 468 (Miss. 2011)...14 Fowler v. White, 85 So. 3d 287 (Miss. 2012)...15 Harris v. Darby, 17 So. 3d 1076 (Miss. 2009)...16 Harris v. Miss. Valley State Univ., 873 So. 2d 970 (Miss. 2004)...10 Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Halliburton Co., 826 So. 2d 1206 (Miss. 2001)...10, 11 Hosp. MD, LLC v. Larry, 138 So. 3d 922 (Miss. 2014)...15 Lane v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 853 So. 2d 1144 (Miss. 2003)...11 Lowery v. Statewide Healthcare Serv., Inc., 585 So. 2d 778 (Miss. 1991)...15 Mahaffey v. Maner, 47 So. 3d 1190 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010)...13 Mulligan v. Farmingdale Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 22, 133 A.D. 2d 617 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 1987)...11, 13 Par Indus., Inc. v. Target Container Co., 708 So. 2d 44 (Miss. 1998)...13 Rawson v. Jones, 816 So. 2d 367 (Miss. 2001)...16 Reeve v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 794 F. Supp (D. Kan. 1992)...11 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. King, 921 So. 2d 268 (Miss. 2005)...11 Satterfield v. State, 158 So. 3d 380 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) v

6 St. Bernard Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Hosp. Serv. Ass n of New Orleans, Inc., 712 F.2d 978 (5th Cir. 1983)...11 Stoner v. Colvin, 236 Miss. 736, 110 So. 2d 920 (Miss. 1959)...7, 13 Tallahatchie Gen. Hosp. v. Howe, 49 So. 3d 86 (Miss. 2010)...15 Webb v. Braswell, 930 So. 2d 387 (Miss. 2006)...6, 7, 9, 10, 13 Williams v. Skelton, 6 So. 3d 428 (Miss. 2009)...15 Wilner v. White, 929 So. 2d 315 (Miss. 2006)...16 Statutes MISS. CODE ANN , 15 MISS. CODE ANN Other MISS. R. CIV. P MISS. R. CIV. P MISS. R. APP. P MISS. R. CIV. P MISS. R. CIV. P MISS. R. CIV. P , 11, C.J.S. Trial vi

7 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1. The Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mosely s two Motions to Amend and two Motions to Consolidate where Mosely delayed unreasonably, acted with dilatory motive, the relief requested would have caused undue prejudice to Dr. Childrey, and the relief requested was futile. STATEMENT OF THE CASE I. Nature of the Case. Mosely created a procedural nightmare and now complains without good basis. Mosely sued Dr. Childrey and Baptist Memorial Hospital-Golden Triangle ( BMH-GT ) claiming medical negligence; BMH-GT was dismissed without prejudice based on Mosely s failure to plead proximate cause; Mosely failed to promptly refile or attempt an interlocutory appeal; Mosely filed an untimely Motion to Amend, which was rejected; After filing a second lawsuit against BMH-GT, Mosely filed a Motion to Consolidate, which was rejected; One year later, without offering any new evidence, Mosely filed a second Motion to Consolidate and verbally re-urged her Motion to Amend, both of which were rejected. Because Mosely unreasonably delayed and because her second lawsuit was improper, the Circuit Court s orders rejecting Mosely s motions were proper

8 II. Course of Proceedings in the Court Below. This appeal stems from a medical malpractice action. 2 This timeline illustrates Mosely s lack of diligence: August 23, 2011: August 21, 2013: August 22, 2013: October 22, 2013: November 1, 2013: November 22, 2013: November 26, 2013: Statute of limitations on Mosely s claims commences upon her death. MISS. CODE ANN Date of Mosely s pre-suit notice letter to Dr. Childrey and BMH-GT. C.P. 1: Statute of limitations expires as to BMH-GT, Brandy Adams Hall ( Hall ), and Jennifer Gillam ( Gillam ). MISS. CODE ANN Mosely files Complaint against Dr. Childrey and BMH-GT, Cause No CV1 ( Mosely I ). C.P. 1: Mosely files operative First Amended Complaint. C.P. 1: Mosely s current counsel enters appearance as lead counsel of record. C.P. 1: BMH-GT files Motion to Dismiss based on Mosely s failure to allege it was the proximate cause of her damages. C.P. 1: Mosely s claims against Dr. Childrey proceeded to a jury trial beginning on August 31, 2015 and ending on September 4, 2015 with a defense verdict. The jury found that Dr. Childrey was not negligent in his care of Mayfield. Importantly, Mosely does not appeal from any issues occurring during the trial or from the final judgment entered on the jury s defense verdict. Instead, she appeals from four pre-trial orders prohibiting her from proceeding on her claims against BMH-GT in this matter. 3 The Clerk s Papers are cited as C.P. [vol.]:[page]. The Hearing Transcripts are cited as Tr. [page]. Mosely s Record Excerpts are cited as Mosely s R.E. [page]. In addition to Mosely s Record Excerpts, Dr. Childrey files his own Record Excerpts, cited as Childrey s R.E. [page]. 4 Hall and Gillam are individual nurses employed by BMH-GT who were involved in Mayfield s care during her 2011 hospitalization. Mosely did not give Hall and Gillam pre-suit notice pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated (15), and her claims against BMH-GT solely were based on a theory of respondeat superior. Accordingly, when the statute of limitations ran on her claims against Hall and Gillam, the statute also ran on her claims against BMH-GT. See infra Part II.c. 5 Mosely amended her Complaint to add a wrongful death count. C.P. 1:

9 January 23, 2014: Hearing on BMH-GT s Motion to Dismiss. Tr March 27, 2014: May 6, 2014: Order entered granting BMH-GT s Motion to Dismiss. C.P. 2: Agreed Scheduling Order signed by counsel for Mosely and Dr. Childrey entered setting deadline for joinder of parties and amendments to pleadings on or before June 1, 2014 and the trial date for November 17, C.P. 2: May 12, 2014: Final Judgment entered in favor of BMH-GT. C.P. 2:200. June 1, 2014: June 11, 2014: September 3, 2014: Deadline expires for Mosely to join parties or amend pleadings pursuant to the Agreed Scheduling Order. C.P. 2: day limit expires for Mosely to appeal the entry of Final Judgment in favor of BMH-GT. MISS. R. APP. P. 4(a). Mosely files untimely Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint to add BMH-GT back in as a Defendant. C.P. 3: Dr. Childrey responded in opposition to the Motion to Amend, arguing undue delay, prejudice, and futility. C.P. 3: October 29, 2014: November 4, 2014: Hearing held on Mosely s untimely Motion to Amend. Tr Order entered denying Mosely s untimely Motion to Amend. Dr. Childrey s R.E Mosely files new and separate Complaint against BMH- GT, Hall, and Gillam, Cause No CV1C ( Mosely II ). November 10, 2014: Mosely files Motion to Consolidate Mosely I and 6 The Agreed Scheduling Order was entered and the November 2014 trial date was set at Mosely s insistence. C.P. 2: See also C.P. 3: Mosely erroneously asserted that her Motion to Amend was unopposed. In fact, Dr. Childrey opposed the motion. C.P. 3:

10 Mosely II and Continue Trial in Mosely I. C.P. 5: Dr. Childrey responded in opposition to the Motion to Consolidate, arguing the motion was premature, undue delay in bringing the second action, prejudice, and that the second action was futile. C.P. 5: November 18, 2014: December 1, 2014: December 10, 2014: June 10, 2015: Order entered denying Mosely s Motion to Consolidate. Dr. Childrey s R.E. 3. Agreed Order entered setting Mosely I for trial beginning August 31, C.P. 6: BMH-GT, Hall, and Gillam file Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment in Mosely II. Mosely files second Motion to Consolidate Mosely I and Mosely II and Continue Trial in Mosely I. C.P. 6: Dr. Childrey responded in opposition to the Motion to Consolidate, arguing Mosely unreasonably delayed and prejudice. C.P. 6: August 5, 2015: Hearing on BMH-GT, Hall and Gillam s Motion to Dismiss and Mosely s Motion to Consolidate. Tr During the hearing, Mosely conceded that BMH- GT, Hall and Gillam s Motion to Dismiss Mosely II should be granted. Tr. at 60. Also during the hearing, Mosely verbally re-urged her September 2014 Motion to Amend First Amended Complaint to add BMH-GT back in as a Defendant. Tr. 60; 83-85; Dr. Childrey opposed the verbally re-urged Motion to Amend for the same reasons it opposed Mosely s original Motion to 8 Over Dr. Childrey s objection, the November 17, 2014 trial ultimately was continued until August 31, 2015 due to Mosely s failure to timely confirm and secure her expert s availability. C.P. 6:

11 Amend, and specifically the prejudice it would cause. Tr. 81; BMH-GT, Hall and Gillam also responded in opposition to the verbally re-urged Motion to Amend, arguing that the motion was not properly before the court, had already been disposed of by the trial court, prejudice, and futility. Tr. 64; August 13, 2015: August 20, 2015: August 26, 2015: August 31, 2015 September 4, 2015: September 4, 2015: September 8, 2015: October 5, 2015: Orders entered denying Mosely s re-urged Motion to Amend and second Motion to Consolidate and granting BMH-GT s, Hall s and Gillam s Motion to Dismiss in Mosely II. Mosely s R.E Mosely files Petition for Interlocutory Appeal from the Circuit Court s order denying her Motion to Amend. C.P. 7:994. Order entered by the Mississippi Supreme Court denying Mosely s Petition for Interlocutory Appeal. C.P. 7: Mosely s claims against Dr. Childrey are tried before a jury. Defense verdict returned for Dr. Childrey finding that he was not negligent in his care of Mayfield. C.P. 8: Final Judgment entered on the jury s defense verdict dismissing all claims against Dr. Childrey with prejudice. C.P. 8: Mosely files notice of appeal in this case appealing from the Circuit Court s orders denying her first and verbally reurged Motions to Amend and her two Motions to Consolidate. C.P. 8: III. Statement of Facts. Mayfield presented to BMH-GT in labor, and Dr. Childrey performed a Cesarean Section operation, delivering twin girls. Mayfield passed away as a result of complications from a perforated stress ulcer. Two years later, Mosely brought this lawsuit alleging Dr. Childrey and

12 BMH-GT s nurses were negligent in their post-delivery care of Mayfield. 9 BMH-GT was dismissed without prejudice, and Mosely s claims against Dr. Childrey proceeded to trial, resulting in a defense verdict. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mosely s motions. Mosely repeatedly delayed and failed to cure her own pleading deficiencies. Indeed, Mosely waited until the eve of trial not once, but twice, to attempt to rename BMH-GT as a defendant or consolidate Mosely I and Mosely II. Because of the continued delay and duplication of discovery that would have resulted, Mosely s requested relief would have prejudiced Dr. Childrey. Finally, Mosely s motions were futile because she conceded Mosely II should be dismissed and because her claims against BMH-GT and the individual nurses were barred by the statute of limitations. Therefore, the Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion, and its rulings should be affirmed. ARGUMENT Mosely s motions were denied and she proceeded to trial against only Dr. Childrey because of her own repeated failure to act promptly and diligently. The Court s rulings should be upheld. I. Standard of Review. a. Motions to Amend. A trial court s decision to deny a motion to amend is subject to the deferential abuse of discretion standard of review. Webb v. Braswell, 930 So. 2d 387, (Miss. 2006). Motions to amend should be denied where there has been undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the 9 Mosely did not argue that Dr. Childrey was negligent in his pre-natal care. Tr

13 part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or where the amendment would cause undue prejudice to the opposing party or be futile. Id. at 393. b. Motions to Consolidate. Similarly, a trial court s decision to deny a motion to consolidate is also subject to the deferential abuse of discretion standard of review. Stoner v. Colvin, 110 So. 2d 920, 924 (Miss. 1959). Trial courts should exercise their discretionary power with great caution and only after careful consideration of all facts and circumstances to determine whether [the] necessary requirements for consolidation are present, and whether [the] ends of justice will be served and [the] substantial rights of all parties involved preserved, and, if doubt exists as to the advisability of consolidating cases, [an] order to try cases together should not be entered. Id. at 925. (quoting 88 C.J.S. Trial 6 at 27) (emphasis added). II. The Circuit Court did not Abuse its Discretion in Denying Mosely s Motions Because Mosely s Conduct Precipitated the Court s Rulings. Every single reason recognized by Mississippi law as a basis to deny a motion to amend and a motion to consolidate was present in the procedural history of this case. a. Mosely Unduly Delayed and Acted with Dilatory Motive in Bringing Her Motions, and Repeatedly Failed to Cure Her Deficiencies. Mosely had multiple opportunities to keep BMH-GT in this case: 1. Mosely should have sufficiently and timely stated a claim against BMH-GT in her original Complaint. C.P. 1: Mosely should have sufficiently stated a claim against BMH-GT in her First Amended Complaint filed in November C.P. 1: Mosely should have moved to amend upon receiving BMH-GT s Motion to Dismiss, which put her on notice of the deficient pleading in November C.P. 1: Mosely should have moved to amend after the hearing on BMH-GT s Motion to Dismiss in January Tr

14 5. Mosely should have moved to amend after the Circuit Court granted BMH-GT s Motion to Dismiss in March C.P. 2: Mosely should have moved to amend or appealed from the Final Judgment dismissing BMH-GT in May C.P. 2: Mosely should have moved to amend any time prior to the June 1, 2014 deadline to amend the pleadings as provided by the Agreed Scheduling Order. C.P. 2: Instead of acting on any one of these opportunities, Mosely remained defiant that she had clearly alleged negligence against BMH-GT until September 2014, when she first moved to amend to rename BMH-GT as a defendant in the matter. C.P. 1:97; C.P. 3: This motion came five months after BMH-GT had been dismissed from the case, more than three months after the deadline to amend the pleadings a negotiated and agreed upon deadline Mosely herself insisted upon in the Agreed Scheduling Order and less than two months before trial was scheduled to commence in Mosely I the trial date also having been agreed upon and set at Mosely s insistence. C.P. 2: ; 3: Not surprisingly, the Circuit Court denied Mosely s motion based on her delay. Dr. Childrey s R.E In response to the Circuit Court s order on her Motion to Amend, and only days away from the commencement of the November 2014 trial in Mosely I, Mosely filed Mosely II (a lawsuit against BMH-GT and the individual nurses) and moved to consolidate the two lawsuits before she had even served process on the defendants in Mosely II. C.P. 5: The Circuit Court denied Mosely s motion because the two lawsuits were at drastically different stages. Dr. Childrey s R.E. 3. Thus, the Circuit Court s decision on this motion was also because of Mosely s dilatory action in bringing Mosely II. Indeed, Mosely was empowered to file Mosely II at any time without delay, but failed to prosecute her case against the hospital and its nurses diligently

15 One year later after having successfully delayed the November 2014 trial because she was unable to secure the attendance of her expert Mosely again moved to consolidate Mosely I and Mosely II. C.P. 6: During the hearing on her motion, however, Mosely s counsel conceded that Mosely II should be dismissed, making her Motion to Consolidate moot. Tr. at 60. Accordingly, the Circuit Court duly denied her motion. Mosely s R.E. 18. During this same hearing, though, Mosely verbally re-urged her Motion to Amend. Tr. 60; 83-85; Again, the Circuit Court denied this motion due to Mosely s unreasonable delay and failure to present any new evidence since the Circuit Court denied her request for the same relief one year prior. Mosely s R.E. 19. Thus, each of the Circuit Court s orders Mosely complains about in this appeal was entered due to her own unreasonable delay. During the hearings on all four motions and in this appeal, Mosely s sole explanation for her delay is that she obtained new evidence of the hospital s negligence specifically, nursing negligence during discovery. See App. Br. at 9. This argument was then and is now disingenuous because Mosely asserted a negligence claim and specifically, nursing negligence against the hospital in her original Complaint filed in October See C.P. 1:18-24; 1:27-33; 1:95-101; Tr. at 61 ( We also stated in Mosely One that the nurses were negligent ); 63 ( [Baptist] knew that we named nursing negligence ). Thus, Mosely was not attempting to present evidence that had not been presented in previous pleadings, as she appears to suggest in her Appellant s Brief. Appellant s Br. at 9. See also Webb, 930 So. 2d at (affirming trial court s denial of motion to amend because [a]mending the complaint was easily 10 It is relevant to note that even one year later, Mosely II was still at a drastically different stage than Mosely I. No discovery had been taken in Mosely II, and Mosely I was ready for trial

16 possible at a much earlier stage in the litigation, and the Webbs give no good reason why this was not done ). 11 This Court does not view lack of diligence as a compelling reason to amend. Applications to amend the pleadings should be prompt and not the result of lack of diligence. Webb, 930 So. 2d at 395 (quoting Harris v. Miss. Valley State Univ., 873 So. 2d 970, 991 (Miss. 2004)). In fact, Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 15 expressly states leave to amend shall be granted... within time as determined by the court. MISS. R. CIV. P. 15(a) (emphasis added). 12 The Circuit Court determined at Mosely s insistence that Mosely could move to amend the pleadings and join parties on or by June 1, C.P. 2:198-99; 3: Nevertheless, Mosely waited 94 days after the Circuit Court s deadline to move to amend the first time and re-urged her motion 430 days after the Circuit Court s deadline. 13 Thus, Mosely not only ignored at least 11 While Mosely does not identify the new evidence in her Appellant s Brief, she indicated in her Petition for Interlocutory Appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court filed on August 19, 2015 that the new evidence came from Wanda Hubbard s ( Hubbard ) testimony in July However, Hubbard was deposed by counsel for Dr. Childrey because Mosely listed her as a witness. In fact, she is Mosely s niece. Thus, Mosely had access to any information Hubbard could have provided well before the lawsuit was even filed. Mosely also indicated in her Petition for Interlocutory Appeal that she obtained new evidence concerning Mayfield s worsening vital signs during her depositions of Hall and Gillam in August Of course, the information concerning Mayfield s vital signs, as well as Hall s and Gillam s identities, and any information used by Dr. Childrey s nursing expert regarding nursing negligence, all came from the medical records that Mosely had access to for three years prior to her first Motion to Amend. In short, Mosely had ample time to investigate and discover information related to her allegations, and in fact had such information in her possession, prior to filing the original Complaint in this matter and well in advance of filing the motions that are at issue in this appeal. That she failed to exercise reasonable diligence in discovering this information is not an adequate justification for her delay. 12 There is no absolute right to amend. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Halliburton Co., 826 So. 2d 1206, 1219 (Miss. 2001). However, even if Rule 15 does mandate leave to amend following a 12(b)(6) dismissal, Rule 15 s within time as determined by the court language confirms that Mosely is not entitled to mandatory leave indefinitely. In fact, the previous version of Rule 15(a) gave a plaintiff a hard 30 days to amend his or her complaint after it had been dismissed pursuant to a 12(b)(6) motion. 13 If the previous version of Rule 15 was still in effect, it would be relevant to note that Mosely first moved to amend 160 days after the Circuit Court granted BMH-GT s Motion to Dismiss and 113 days after final judgment was entered on BMH-GT s dismissal, well beyond the 30 days previously

17 seven opportunities to keep BMH-GT in this case, she clearly did not move to amend within [the] time as determined by the court as required by Rule 15(a). The Mississippi appellate courts consistently have found no abuse of discretion and upheld a trial court s denial of a motion to amend where just as here the plaintiff failed to exercise his or her rights to amend within the time provided by Rule 15 after having been dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See, e.g., Lane v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 853 So. 2d 1144, (Miss. 2003), overruled on other grounds by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. King, 921 So. 2d 268 (Miss. 2005); Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 826 So. 2d at 1219; Satterfield v. State, 158 So. 3d 380, 384 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). Likewise, courts consistently have found no abuse of discretion and upheld a trial court s denial of a motion to consolidate where just as here the plaintiff delayed in seeking the requested relief, causing the two cases to be at different stages in the litigation process. See, e.g., St. Bernard Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Hosp. Serv. Ass n of New Orleans, Inc., 712 F.2d 978, (5th Cir. 1983) (holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny a motion to consolidate where one case was ready for trial and the other was in discovery); Mulligan v. Farmingdale Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 22, 133 A.D. 2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987) (holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny a motion to consolidate where the party waited to move to consolidate until action was scheduled for trial); Reeve v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 794 F. Supp (D. Kan. 1992) (holding that motion to consolidate was untimely where it was filed 11 days before trial). allowed by the rule. Mosely re-urged her motion 496 days after the Circuit Court granted BMH-GT s Motion to Dismiss and 450 days after final judgment was entered, shockingly beyond the 30 days previously allowed by the rule

18 In fact, consolidation of Mosely I and Mosely II would have caused prejudicial delay, as it would have required a continuance of the trial in Mosely I. 14 See also Dear v. Jackson State Univ., 2008 WL , *2 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 10, 2008) (denying consolidation upon finding that it would require a continuance of the first-filed action, and such continuance would not avoid but, instead, clearly cause delay, and would not serve the interests of judicial economy ). Because Mosely unduly delayed, the Circuit Court s orders denying her motions should be affirmed. b. The Relief Requested by Mosely would have Prejudiced Dr. Childrey and Not Served the Ends of Justice. Mosely waited until the eve of trial to move to amend and consolidate not once, but twice. 15 On both occasions, Dr. Childrey and his experts had diligently prepared for trial and made arrangements to be away from their work and patients for the duration of the trial. Thus, Mosely s delayed motions would have significantly prejudiced Dr. Childrey had they been granted. Specifically, the requested relief would have required duplication of and additional discovery, resulting in significant expense to all parties, as well as delay. Dr. Childrey diligently commenced discovery by propounding written discovery and taking a total of ten fact and expert depositions in preparation for trial. Mosely also propounded written discovery and took two depositions. If Mosely s relief had been granted, the parties would have had to retake the twelve 14 Indeed, on both occasions, Mosely requested a continuance of the trial in Mosely I in addition to consolidation with Mosely II. C.P. 5:627-29; 6: As previously stated, Mosely was successful in continuing the original November 2014 trial, over Childrey s objection, due to her failure to timely confirm and secure her expert s availability. C.P. 6: Mosely s first motions were brought just before the November 2014 trial, and Mosely s second motions were brought just before the August 2015 trial

19 depositions so that BMH-GT could participate as a party, and additional depositions would have had to have been taken. Further, Dr. Childrey made arrangements with his office and the hospital to be away from work for the duration of the trial in this matter not once, but twice. Likewise, Childrey s five experts also made arrangements to be away from their work so that they were able to testify on behalf of Dr. Childrey at trial, not once but twice. Granting Mosely s motions when they were brought, literally days before trial, would have caused the trial to be rescheduled for a third time, and would have caused Dr. Childrey and his experts undue burden and expense. Trial courts should deny a motion to amend and a motion to consolidate where the opposing party would be prejudiced by the granting of the motion. See, e.g., Webb, 930 So. 2d at 395 (affirming trial court s denial of motion to amend where amendment would cause undue prejudice to the defendants in the form of delay and cost); Par Indus., Inc. v. Target Container Co., 708 So. 2d 44, 53 (Miss. 1998) (affirming trial court s denial of motion to amend were movant lacked due diligence in amending the complaint and Target and Kellerman would be adversely prejudiced if the motion to amend was granted at such a late date ); Mahaffey v. Maner, 47 So. 3d 1190, 1193 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) ( [a] party is not entitled to an absolute right to amend pleadings. Amendments are to be denied if allowing the amendment would prejudice the defendant ); Stoner, 110 So. 2d at ( consolidation for trial should not be ordered where it would be injurious or prejudicial to one or more of the parties ); Dear, 2008 WL at *2 (consolidation causing delay of trial would not serve the interests of judicial economy ); Mulligan, 133 A.D. 2d 617 (affirming denial of motion to consolidate where it would have caused prejudicial delay )

20 The significant prejudice that would have occurred if the Circuit Court had granted Mosely s motions would have rendered meaningless the purpose of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. See MISS. R. CIV. P. 1. Thus, the Circuit Court s orders denying her motions should be affirmed. c. Mosely s Motions were Futile. Mosely admitted that Mosely II should be dismissed. Tr. at 60 ( we want to confess the motion to dismiss ). In accordance with Mosely s confession, the Circuit Court dismissed Mosely II, making Mosely s Motions to Consolidate moot, because there was no second case with which to consolidate Mosely I. Given this fact, Mosely should be estopped from taking the position that Judge Howard abused his discretion in denying those motions. See, e.g., Estate of McLemore v. McLemore, 63 So. 3d 468, 491 (Miss. 2011) (holding that party was judicially estopped from alleging error on appeal regarding an issue on which he took an opposite position at trial). 16 Furthermore, the statute of limitations barred Mosely s claims against BMH-GT and the individual nurses, making her motions futile. Mosely s claims in this action against BMH-GT solely were based on allegations of vicarious liability of the nurses on the theory of respondeat superior. C.P. 1:29-31 ( At all times relevant, the Defendant employed various medical providers, nurses and medical staff at its hospital, including but not limited to Dr. Gregory 16 Both of Mosely s Motions to Consolidate were futile, despite Mosely s effective concession of only her second Motion to Consolidate. Indeed, Mosely II was futile the day it was filed, as it constituted improper claim-splitting. Mosely incorrectly alleges that Carpenter v. Kenneth Thompson Builder, Inc., 186 So. 3d 820 (Miss. 2014) held consolidation proper after Carpenter filed a second claim against new defendants made available through discovery. Appellant s Br. at (citing the case s pre-publication citation). Actually, the Mississippi Supreme Court held just the opposite. Carpenter, 186 So. 3d at 825. The Court explained that naming new parties in a separate complaint and then moving to consolidate the two cases exactly what Mosely attempted to do here constitutes impermissible claim-splitting requiring dismissal. Id. Thus, based on Carpenter, consolidation at any time would have been futile

21 Childrey, M.D. and these employees/servants/agents were acting within the scope of their employment with the Defendant when they rendered medical care to the late Gerboria Mayfield. They failed to follow the applicable standard of medical care during their care and treatment of the late Gerboria Mayfield which proximately resulted in a physical injury to the late Gerboria Mayfield and proximately caused her death ); 17 Tr. 67 ( the hospital s vicariously liable for the actions of the nurses ). Specifically, Mosely claimed that BMH-GT was vicariously liable for the negligence of its employees, Hall and Gillam, who were Mayfield s nurses during her 2011 hospitalization. C.P. 5: Mosely alleged no independent claims against BMH-GT. In regards to respondeat superior claims, the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that a suit barred by a statute of limitation against an agent will likewise bar the same claim against the principal whose liability is based solely upon the principal and agency relationship, and not some act or conduct of the principal separate and apart from the act or conduct of the agent. Lowery v. Statewide Healthcare Serv., Inc., 585 So. 2d 778, 780 (Miss. 1991). 18 Mosely never provided Hall and Gillam with pre-suit notice as mandated by Mississippi Code Annotated (15). 19 Thus, Mosely s claims against the nurses expired on August 17 BMH-GT did not employ Dr. Childrey, but did employ the individual nurses. C.P. 1: Incidentally, Lowery concerned a plaintiff s medical malpractice claim against a nurse and the nurse s employer. Just as is the case here, the plaintiff s claims against the employer in Lowery solely were based on respondeat superior, and not on any action or inaction of the employer. 585 So. 2d at Mosely s pre-suit notice to BMH-GT does not satisfy her obligations to provide Hall and Gillam pre-suit notice. Mosely was required to provide Hall and Gillam with pre-suit notice to receive the benefit of the extended statute of limitations on her claims against Hall, Gillam, and BMH-GT. See, e.g., Hosp. MD, LLC v. Larry, 138 So. 3d 922, 927 (Miss. 2014); Fowler v. White, 85 So. 3d 287, 291 (Miss. 2012); Williams v. Skelton, 6 So. 3d 428, 430 (Miss. 2009); Andrews v. Arceo, 988 So. 2d 399 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008); Arceo v. Tolliver, 19 So. 3d 67 (Miss. 2009); Tallahatchie Gen. Hosp. v. Howe, 49 So. 3d 86, (Miss. 2010); Lowery, 585 So. 2d at

22 22, Because Mosely s claims against BMH-GT were based solely on the theory of respondeat superior, Mosely s claims against BMH-GT also expired on August 22, 2013, when Mosely s claims against BMH-GT s employees expired, whether the employees were named as defendants or not. However, Mosely filed her Complaint in this action against BMH-GT on October 22, Accordingly, Mosely s claims against BMH-GT were barred by the statute of limitations. Furthermore, Mosely can find no solace in the savings statute, codified in Mississippi Code Annotated , because it only applies if the action was duly commenced within the applicable statute of limitations. See, e.g., Harris v. Darby, 17 So. 3d 1076, 1079 (Miss. 2009). Of course, duly commenced refers to the filing of a complaint. See, e.g., Arceo, 19 So. 3d at 74 (for purposes of the savings statute, duly commenced is a cause commenced consistent with the requirements of the Rules [of Civil Procedure] ); see also MISS. R. CIV. P. 3(a) ( [a] civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court ). Here, because the sole allegation against BMH-GT was based on respondeat superior, the operative statute of limitations was that applicable to the nurses, and it expired on August 22, Because Mosely filed Mosely I 61 days after the expiration of the statute of limitations, the action against BMH-GT was not duly commenced within the statute of limitations, and 20 Again, Mosely had access to the medical records well in advance of filing her original Complaint in this matter. Those records clearly indicated the identity of the nurses who tended to Mayfield during her hospitalization. Furthermore, Mosely failed to include fictitious parties as defendants in her original Complaint or Amended Complaint, as required by Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h) in pleading claims against fictitious parties. See C.P. 1:18; 27. Thus, Mosely cannot claim Hall and Gillam were fictitious parties such that her claims against them related back to her original Complaint pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). See, e.g., Wilner v. White, 929 So. 2d 315, (Miss. 2006); Doe v. Miss. Blood Serv., Inc., 704 So. 2d 1016, (Miss. 1997); Rawson v. Jones, 816 So. 2d 367, (Miss. 2001)

23 consequently, the savings statute is inapplicable. 21 Because Mosely s claims against BMH-GT and the individual nurses were futile, the Circuit Court s orders denying her motions to bring those futile claims should be affirmed. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we ask the Court to affirm Judge Howard s orders appealed from in this matter. Submitted this the 30th day June, OF COUNSEL: BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC J. Gordon Flowers, Ms. Bar No Scott F. Singley, MS Bar No Post Office Box 7520 Columbus, Mississippi Telephone: (662) Facsimile: (662) gflowers@brunini.com ssingley@brunini.com Lauren O. Lawhorn, MS Bar No Post Office Drawer 119 Jackson, MS Telephone: (601) Facsimile: (601) llawhorn@brunini.com GREGORY W. CHILDREY, M.D. By: /s/ Lauren O. Lawhorn One of his Attorneys 21 Even if it were applicable, the savings statute would not allow Mosely s Motion to Amend that she verbally re-urged in August 2015, well over one year after the dismissal of BMH-GT. Moreover, the savings statute should not operate to allow a party to re-file her claims where as here she had ample opportunity to correct the deficiencies as to the form of her claims, but instead chose to sit on her rights until the eve of trial to request to re-file her claims

24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lauren O. Lawhorn, one of the attorneys for Dr. Childrey, do hereby certify that I have this day, electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system which will send notification of such filing to the following: Carlos E. Moore Tameika L. Bennett Tangala Hollis Darryl A. Wilson MOORE LAW GROUP, P.C. P.O. Box 1487 Grenada, MS Further, I hereby certify that I have mailed the foregoing document by U.S. Mail to the Honorable Lee J. Howard, Circuit Court of Lowndes County, Mississippi, Post Office Box 1679, Starkville, Mississippi This the 30 th day of June, /s/ Lauren O. Lawhorn Lauren O. Lawhorn

Case 8:15-cv SCB-TBM Document 79 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID 485 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Case 8:15-cv SCB-TBM Document 79 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID 485 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Case 8:15-cv-02561-SCB-TBM Document 79 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID 485 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION MILLETTE KAREN STEPHENSON, as Personal Representative

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D17-470

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D17-470 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT ROGER NIEHAUS, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Case No. 5D17-470

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as Wooster Floral & Gifts, L.L.C. v. Green Thumb Floral & Garden Ctr., Inc., 2019-Ohio-63.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) WOOSTER FLORAL &

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 1:16-cv-04162-ODE Document 15 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD, v. Plaintiff, TROPICAL

More information

Case 9:11-cv DWM Document 64 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 7

Case 9:11-cv DWM Document 64 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 7 Case 9:11-cv-00070-DWM Document 64 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 7 Karen P. Kane CONNELL LAW FIRM 502 West Spruce P.O. Box 9108 Missoula, Montana 59807 Telephone: (406) 327-1517 Facsimile: (406) 327-1518 msc.clf@bigsky.net

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Case :-cv-00-jlq ECF No. filed 0/0/ PageID. Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON In Re Application of ZAYN AL-ABIDIN MUHAMMAD HUSAYN (Abu Zubaydah No. CV--0-JLQ and JOSEPH

More information

Coaches Beware of Participating With Players in Practice

Coaches Beware of Participating With Players in Practice The Physical Educator Vol. 75 pp. 158 162 2018 YOU AND THE LAW Coaches Beware of Participating With Players in Practice Tonya L. Sawyer Zachary B. Elias v. Kenneth Davis and Sterling Edwards; Ct. App.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION Ward v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al Doc. 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION JOHN WARD, JR. Plaintiff No. 08-4022 V. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CISCO SYSTEMS,

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 4, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D15-1436 Lower Tribunal No. 10-01987 Pedro Gomez, etc.,

More information

Case 1:16-cv BLW Document 1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 11

Case 1:16-cv BLW Document 1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 11 Case 1:16-cv-00271-BLW Document 1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 11 Bradlee R. Frazer, ISB No. 3857 D. John Ashby, ISB No. 7228 William K. Fletcher, ISB No. 7950 HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY LLP 877 Main Street,

More information

Arbitration CAS 2015/A/4210 Karam Gaber v. United World Wrestling (FILA), award of 28 December 2015

Arbitration CAS 2015/A/4210 Karam Gaber v. United World Wrestling (FILA), award of 28 December 2015 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2015/A/4210 Karam Gaber v. United World Wrestling (FILA), award of 28 December 2015 Panel: Mr Romano Subiotto Q.C. (United Kingdom),

More information

COURTS, HARLEY. index Number : /2004. Cross-Motion: '1 Yes n No SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY PART PRESENT:

COURTS, HARLEY. index Number : /2004. Cross-Motion: '1 Yes n No SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY PART PRESENT: lnedon111i312007 v' " SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART f index Number : 102526/2004 COURTS, HARLEY VS GUSHEE, CHERYL Sequence Number : 001 DISMISS INDEX NO. MOTIONDATE

More information

Case 1:13-cv JEB Document 20 Filed 05/15/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:13-cv JEB Document 20 Filed 05/15/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 1:13-cv-01870-JEB Document 20 Filed 05/15/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, and AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, v.

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: MAY 29, 2015; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2013-CA-000900-MR WILLIAM E. MARCH APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE THOMAS

More information

PAUL F. SANCHEZ, III CANDIA WOODS GOLF LINKS. Argued: September 15, 2010 Opinion Issued: November 24, 2010

PAUL F. SANCHEZ, III CANDIA WOODS GOLF LINKS. Argued: September 15, 2010 Opinion Issued: November 24, 2010 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

CITATION: Legacy et al. v. Thunder Bay (Corporation) et al., 2018 ONSC 0758 COURT FILE NO.: CV DATE:

CITATION: Legacy et al. v. Thunder Bay (Corporation) et al., 2018 ONSC 0758 COURT FILE NO.: CV DATE: CITATION: Legacy et al. v. Thunder Bay (Corporation et al., 2018 ONSC 0758 COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-0040 DATE: 2018-01-31 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: LORRINDA MAUREENA ANNE LEGACY, KYLIE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO. DIXON INDUSTRIES, ET AL. : (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendants-Appellees :

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO. DIXON INDUSTRIES, ET AL. : (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendants-Appellees : [Cite as Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Dixon Industries, 2004-Ohio-4925.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO CINCINNATI INSURANCE CO. : Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. Case No. 2003-CA-41 v. : T.C. Case

More information

DC CAUSE NO.

DC CAUSE NO. 10 CITS-ESERVE DC-18-00398 CAUSE NO. FILED DALLAS COUNTY 1/11/2018 12:22 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK Christi Underwood RICHARD W. WALKER, individually and derivatively on behalf of NATIONAL CENTER

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 3, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-2311 Lower Tribunal Nos. 2015-30307, 2015-30305 West

More information

NO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

NO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I NO. CAAP-13-0002570 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER C. MUNDON, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

More information

Levine v USA Cycling, Inc NY Slip Op 33177(U) December 4, 2018 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: /15 Judge: Bernard J.

Levine v USA Cycling, Inc NY Slip Op 33177(U) December 4, 2018 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: /15 Judge: Bernard J. Levine v USA Cycling, Inc. 2018 NY Slip Op 33177(U) December 4, 2018 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 515257/15 Judge: Bernard J. Graham Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION. CASE NO CR-COOKE/BROWN(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION. CASE NO CR-COOKE/BROWN(s)(s)(s)(s)(s) Case 0:04-cr-60001-MGC Document 693 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2006 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 04-60001-CR-COOKE/BROWN(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)

More information

ATL L /15/2017 Pg 1 of 5 Trans ID: LCV

ATL L /15/2017 Pg 1 of 5 Trans ID: LCV ATL L 002610-16 12/15/2017 Pg 1 of 5 Trans ID: LCV2017648144 JOHN ROBERTELLI, ESQ. (012601990) RIVKIN RADLER LLP 21 Main Street Court Plaza South West Wing Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 201-287-2460 Attorney

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA NO

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA NO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA NO. 15-1191 ELECTRONICALLY FILED JAN 14, 2016 CLERK OF SUPREME COURT SPENCER JAMES LUDMAN, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, DAVENPORT ASSUMPTION HIGH SCHOOL. Defendant-Appellant. On

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SHANNON M. THERRIEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 2, 2003 v No. 241792 Wayne Circuit Court CRYSTAL ADAMS-KREUGER, LASERGRAFT LC No. 01-122844-NH COSMETIC

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G JAMES MCCRAY, EMPLOYEE OPINION FILED AUGUST 3, 2012

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G JAMES MCCRAY, EMPLOYEE OPINION FILED AUGUST 3, 2012 BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G107540 JAMES MCCRAY, EMPLOYEE COULSON OIL COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYER ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT

More information

Djokovic v. Atty Gen USA

Djokovic v. Atty Gen USA 2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-27-2006 Djokovic v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-2270 Follow this

More information

Cuman Cropper v M.D. Stewart 2009 NY Slip Op 33271(U) July 17, 2009 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /2006 Judge: Harold B. Beeler Republished

Cuman Cropper v M.D. Stewart 2009 NY Slip Op 33271(U) July 17, 2009 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /2006 Judge: Harold B. Beeler Republished Cuman Cropper v M.D. Stewart 2009 NY Slip Op 33271(U) July 17, 2009 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 114878/2006 Judge: Harold B. Beeler Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts

More information

The Hit Heard Round the State Averill v. Luttrell

The Hit Heard Round the State Averill v. Luttrell The Hit Heard Round the State Averill v. Luttrell A panel of Court of Appeals judges for the Eastern Division of Tennessee was called upon to consider an unusual but still frequently cited case involving

More information

(OAL Decision: V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

(OAL Decision:   V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION 426-16 (OAL Decision: http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/html/initial/edu05308-16_1.html) M.R., ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD, M.R., : PETITIONER, : V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF

More information

ALA MOOT COURT RULES. Only ABA-accredited law schools may enter the ALA Moot Court Competition.

ALA MOOT COURT RULES. Only ABA-accredited law schools may enter the ALA Moot Court Competition. ALA MOOT COURT RULES A. SPONSORSHIP OF THE COMPETITION The Appellate Lawyers Association ( ALA ) is an association of lawyers who practice in the courts of review, and of judges who serve on those courts.

More information

Arbitration CAS 2006/A/1110 PAOK FC v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), award of 25 August 2006 (operative part of 13 July 2006)

Arbitration CAS 2006/A/1110 PAOK FC v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), award of 25 August 2006 (operative part of 13 July 2006) Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration PAOK FC v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Panel: Prof. Luigi Fumagalli (Italy), Sole Arbitrator Football Admission

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed January 2, 2013. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D11-2927 Lower Tribunal No. 09-12959

More information

Arbitration CAS 2009/A/2011 Stephan Schumacher v. International Olympic Committee (IOC), award on costs of 6 May 2010

Arbitration CAS 2009/A/2011 Stephan Schumacher v. International Olympic Committee (IOC), award on costs of 6 May 2010 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration Stephan Schumacher v. International Olympic Committee (IOC), Panel: Prof. Luigi Fumagalli (Italy), President; Prof. Ulrich Haas (Germany);

More information

DEADLINE.com mew Doc 959 Filed 11/10/15 Entered 11/10/15 22:06:43 Main Document Pg 1 of 5. November 10, 2015

DEADLINE.com mew Doc 959 Filed 11/10/15 Entered 11/10/15 22:06:43 Main Document Pg 1 of 5. November 10, 2015 Pg 1 of 5 Michael S. Elkin Partner 212.294.6729 melkin@winston.com VIA E-MAIL AND ECF (wiles.chambers@nysb.uscourts.gov) Hon. Michael E. Wiles United States Bankruptcy Court One Bowling Green New York,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Defendant. CASE 0:12-cv-00472-RHK-JJK Document 391 Filed 08/07/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Jesse Ventura a/k/a James G. Janos, v. Plaintiff, Civ. No. 12-472 (RHK/JJK) ORDER Taya

More information

CODE OF CONDUCT. (Version: 1 January 2018)

CODE OF CONDUCT. (Version: 1 January 2018) CODE OF CONDUCT (Version: 1 January 2018) This Code of Conduct applies to amateur golfers and caddies, in all Championships, major activities, events and competitions conducted by Golf NSW in addition

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA. Case No.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA. Case No. Electronically Filed 10/3/2017 2:35 PM Fourth Judicial District, Ada County Christopher D. Rich, Clerk of the Court By: Rose Wright, Deputy Clerk Terri Pickens Manweiler/ISB #5828 Shannon N. Pearson/ISB

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

SEPTEMBER 2012 LAW REVIEW ADA CLAIMANTS MUST BE QUALIFIED FOR SWIM PROGRAMS

SEPTEMBER 2012 LAW REVIEW ADA CLAIMANTS MUST BE QUALIFIED FOR SWIM PROGRAMS ADA CLAIMANTS MUST BE QUALIFIED FOR SWIM PROGRAMS James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2012 James C. Kozlowski To establish a claim for discrimination on the basis of disability under the Americans with Disabilities

More information

New Brunswick Rugby Union, Inc. By-laws 1. Membership Policy 2. Game Regulations

New Brunswick Rugby Union, Inc. By-laws 1. Membership Policy 2. Game Regulations New Brunswick Rugby Union, Inc. By-laws 1. Membership Policy i) The NBRU requires all individuals participating in the sport of Rugby in the province of New Brunswick to be members of the NBRU. ii) Membership

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Page 1 of 7 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2008 WI APP 38 Case No.: 2006AP1886 Petitions for Review Filed Complete Title of Case: BRITTANY L. NOFFKE, BY HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MART W.

More information

The government moves for reconsideration of part of my Opinion and Order of September

The government moves for reconsideration of part of my Opinion and Order of September UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, et al., : : ORDER DENYING Plaintiffs, : MOTION

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:10-cv-01274-ESH Document 13 Filed 01/18/11 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ) ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No.

More information

Suspensions under the Teacher Tenure Act

Suspensions under the Teacher Tenure Act Suspensions under the Teacher Tenure Act 469 Chapter 21 Suspensions under the Teacher Tenure Act Detailed Contents Section 2100 Suspension without Pay as Punishment 471 Grounds for the Suspension 472 Maximum

More information

Mamati v City of New York Parks & Recreation 2013 NY Slip Op 33830(U) September 9, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 13927/11 Judge:

Mamati v City of New York Parks & Recreation 2013 NY Slip Op 33830(U) September 9, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 13927/11 Judge: Mamati v City of New York Parks & Recreation 2013 NY Slip Op 33830(U) September 9, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 13927/11 Judge: Kevin J. Kerrigan Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Cornelius Edward McCray, Jr., Petitioner v. No. 327 C.D. 2015 Pennsylvania Board of Probation Submitted September 11, 2015 and Parole, Respondent BEFORE HONORABLE

More information

1.1.1 Appeal Panel means the appeal panel appointed by the Union under the Disciplinary Rules;

1.1.1 Appeal Panel means the appeal panel appointed by the Union under the Disciplinary Rules; DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES 1. Discipline 2. Procedures following a sending off 3. Sin Bin / Yellow Cards Procedures 4. Citing Procedures 5. Disciplinary Hearings 6. Appeals and Penalty Review

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) STIPULATION AND NOTICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) STIPULATION AND NOTICE Case :-cv-00-bhs Document - Filed 0// Page of HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 0 WILD FISH CONSERVANCY, et al., v. Plaintiffs, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, et al., Defendants, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER -

More information

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: December 12, 2002 91949 In the Matter of NICHOLAS P. ZITO, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT NEW YORK

More information

ALA MOOT COURT RULES FOR 2012

ALA MOOT COURT RULES FOR 2012 ALA MOOT COURT RULES FOR 2012 A. SPONSORSHIP OF THE COMPETITION The Illinois Appellate Lawyers Association ( ALA ) is an association of lawyers who practice in the courts of review, and of judges who serve

More information

FIVB TRIBUNAL REGULATIONS

FIVB TRIBUNAL REGULATIONS FIVB TRIBUNAL REGULATIONS Edition 2013 I. GENERAL PROVISIONS...3 1. Composition...3 2. Jurisdiction...3 3. Seat...4 4. Language...4 5. Communication...4 II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIVB TRIBUNAL...5 6.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION GARY GEE, ROXANNE MAZARAKIS, JODY SOTO, v. SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., Plaintiffs, Defendant. MOTION TO COMPEL

More information

ATHLETICS AUSTRALIA SELECTION POLICY 2017 WORLD PARA ATHLETICS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM JULY 2017

ATHLETICS AUSTRALIA SELECTION POLICY 2017 WORLD PARA ATHLETICS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM JULY 2017 ATHLETICS AUSTRALIA SELECTION POLICY 2017 WORLD PARA ATHLETICS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM 14-23 JULY 2017 This document sets out the basis on which Athletics Australia will select its Team

More information

Case MFW Doc 1167 Filed 04/14/16 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case MFW Doc 1167 Filed 04/14/16 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Case 16-10527-MFW Doc 1167 Filed 04/14/16 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: SPORTS AUTHORITY HOLDINGS, INC., et al. 1 Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No. 16-10527

More information

CONTACT: Robert A. Stein, acting chair, NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee

CONTACT: Robert A. Stein, acting chair, NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 5, 1999 CONTACT: Robert A. Stein, acting chair, NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee FORMER UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE MEN'S ASSISTANT BASKETBALL COACH PUBLIC INFRACTIONS APPEALS

More information

Report Information from ProQuest

Report Information from ProQuest Report Information from ProQuest January 23 2015 13:43 23 January 2015 ProQuest Table of contents 1. No Duty Owed by Club in Foul Ball Promotion... 1 Bibliography... 5 23 January 2015 ii ProQuest Document

More information

World Boxing Council Consejo Mundial de Boxeo

World Boxing Council Consejo Mundial de Boxeo World Boxing Council Consejo Mundial de Boxeo No. PROFESSIONAL BOXER S COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT Boxer's name: Considering that the world Boxing Council WBC is the owner of its trademark, as well as of the

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT. CA consolidated with CA **********

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT. CA consolidated with CA ********** NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA 06-520 consolidated with CA 06-521 ROY S. OSWALT, ET AL. VERSUS DANIEL J. WALTERS, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE

More information

APPEALS COMMITTEE UPHOLDS DECISION FOR BALL STATE UNIVERSITY FORMER COACH

APPEALS COMMITTEE UPHOLDS DECISION FOR BALL STATE UNIVERSITY FORMER COACH FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, CONTACT: Stacey Osburn Associate Director of Public and Media Relations 317/917-6117 APPEALS COMMITTEE UPHOLDS DECISION FOR BALL STATE UNIVERSITY FORMER COACH INDIANAPOLIS

More information

(HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN) CASE NO: J4373/02

(HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN) CASE NO: J4373/02 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN) CASE NO: J4373/02 In the matter between FABIAN McCARTHY Applicant And SUNDOWNS FOOTBALL CLUB, NSL SAFARespondents J U D G M E N T WAGLAY, J: Football

More information

RECEIVED by MSC 12/20/ :24:24 AM

RECEIVED by MSC 12/20/ :24:24 AM KERRI HUNTER OTTO, As next friend for Bailey Anne Marie Noble, Plaintiff-Appellee, v THE INN AT WATERVALE, INC., A domestic corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Heidi M. Hodek (P73966) Matthew T. Hanley (P76164)

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 8 June 2007, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Percival Majavu

More information

ITF WOMEN S CIRCUIT CHANGES TO THE 2014 REGULATIONS & CODE OF CONDUCT (SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CHANGES)

ITF WOMEN S CIRCUIT CHANGES TO THE 2014 REGULATIONS & CODE OF CONDUCT (SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CHANGES) ITF WOMEN S CIRCUIT CHANGES TO THE 2014 REGULATIONS & CODE OF CONDUCT (SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CHANGES) Section Wording Comments Tournament Events WOMEN S CIRCUIT REGULATIONS Each tournament must consist

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION THE NATIONAL BANK OF BLACKSBURG, v. Plaintiff, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:18-cv-00310-GEC

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION. Defendant. JURY DEMANDED PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION. Defendant. JURY DEMANDED PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION NICHOLAS COLUCCI, d/b/a EZ LINE PUTTERS, Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 6:08-cv-288-LED vs. CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY, Defendant.

More information

M E M O R A N D U M. In this Article 78 proceeding the petitioner, Joanne Halsey,

M E M O R A N D U M. In this Article 78 proceeding the petitioner, Joanne Halsey, SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS - IAS PART 16 M E M O R A N D U M In the Matter of the application of, BY: KELLY, J JOANNE HALSEY, - against - Petitioner, DATED: March 1, 2005 INDEX

More information

SOUTH AFRICAN RUGBY UNION - ANTI-DOPING REGULATIONS

SOUTH AFRICAN RUGBY UNION - ANTI-DOPING REGULATIONS SOUTH AFRICAN RUGBY UNION - ANTI-DOPING REGULATIONS INTRODUCTION 1. SARU Position on Doping SARU condemns doping. It is harmful to the health of players, totally contrary to the spirit of rugby and SARU

More information

Case: 2:15-cv WOB-JGW Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/28/15 Page: 1 of 10 - Page ID#: 1

Case: 2:15-cv WOB-JGW Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/28/15 Page: 1 of 10 - Page ID#: 1 Case: 2:15-cv-00224-WOB-JGW Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/28/15 Page: 1 of 10 - Page ID#: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY COVINGTON DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NUMBER CONNIE MCCLURE

More information

PGA TOUR INTEGRITY PROGRAM MANUAL. Effective January 1, 2018

PGA TOUR INTEGRITY PROGRAM MANUAL. Effective January 1, 2018 PGA TOUR INTEGRITY PROGRAM MANUAL Effective January 1, 2018 (1) INTRODUCTION. Purpose. The PGA TOUR has developed the PGA TOUR Integrity Program (the Integrity Program ) for the primary purpose of preventing

More information

Jamberoo Touch Incorporated Judiciary Rules & Procedures

Jamberoo Touch Incorporated Judiciary Rules & Procedures Jamberoo Touch Incorporated Judiciary Rules & Procedures A. Introduction Jamberoo Touch Incorporated (JT) conducts a social, family-oriented competition. Players participating in any competition conducted

More information

Case 1:17-cv APM Document 1 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 18. United States District Court District of Columbia

Case 1:17-cv APM Document 1 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 18. United States District Court District of Columbia Case 1:17-cv-02000-APM Document 1 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 18 United States District Court District of Columbia 12 Percent Logistics, Inc. 4520 NE 18 th Avenue, Suite 300 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334; Small

More information

University Moot Court Selections (UMCS)

University Moot Court Selections (UMCS) University Moot Court Selections (UMCS) Organised by Moot Court Committee Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University Lucknow Rules & Guidelines Introduction The Moot court committee shall be organising

More information

TITLE 11. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

TITLE 11. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING TITLE 11. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Department of Justice (DOJ) proposes to adopt as permanent regulations the Attorney General s establishment

More information

ORDER. This is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.

ORDER. This is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum. In the Matter of Raymond LaPoint, East Jersey State Prison, Department of Corrections DOP DKT. NO. 2006-630 OAL DKT. NO. CSV 5590-07 (Merit System Board, decided January 16, 2008) The appeal of Raymond

More information

Lomonico v Massapequa Pub. Schools 2010 NY Slip Op 32333(U) August 17, 2010 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: /06 Judge: Randy Sue

Lomonico v Massapequa Pub. Schools 2010 NY Slip Op 32333(U) August 17, 2010 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: /06 Judge: Randy Sue Lomonico v Massapequa Pub. Schools 2010 NY Slip Op 32333(U) August 17, 2010 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 007574/06 Judge: Randy Sue Marber Republished from New York State Unified Court System's

More information

CASE NO. COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Picheny Equestrian Enterprises, Inc. ("Picheny"), as and for its

CASE NO. COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Picheny Equestrian Enterprises, Inc. (Picheny), as and for its IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION Civil Action?- ( CASE NO. PICHENY EQUEST~AN ENTERPRisEs, IN~ "~mo CA 0 ~ 0 8 6 0 xxxx

More information

Best Hole in One Club Member ( Rules and Regulations )

Best Hole in One Club Member ( Rules and Regulations ) Best Hole in One Club Member ( Rules and Regulations ) PLEASE READ THESE RULES AND REGULATIONS CAREFULLY. THESE RULES AND REGULATIONS DEFINE THE TERMS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YOU ( MEMBER OR YOU )

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2013

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2013 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2013 Opinion filed August 14, 2013. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D13-310 Lower Tribunal No. 12-4058

More information

Arbitration CAS 2011/A/2628 Foolad Mobarakeh Sepahan FC v. Asian Football Confederation (AFC), award of 14 March 2012

Arbitration CAS 2011/A/2628 Foolad Mobarakeh Sepahan FC v. Asian Football Confederation (AFC), award of 14 March 2012 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration Foolad Mobarakeh Sepahan FC v. Asian Football Confederation (AFC), Panel: Prof. Petros Mavroidis (Greece); Mr Enrico Pedro Ingles (Philippines);

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT A. KARBEL, as Personal Representative of the Estates of GEORGE F. DRUMMEY and LYNNE S. DRUMMEY, Deceased, FOR PUBLICATION July 31, 2001 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff-Appellant,

More information

smb Doc 217 Filed 01/08/19 Entered 01/08/19 11:54:14 Main Document Pg 1 of 9

smb Doc 217 Filed 01/08/19 Entered 01/08/19 11:54:14 Main Document Pg 1 of 9 Pg 1 of 9 Christopher T. Greco, P.C. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4800 Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 Counsel for Fortress Credit Advisors LLC UNITED

More information

DECISION ITU ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

DECISION ITU ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL Arbitration Tribunal International Triathlon Union (ITU) Avenue de Rhodanie 54 1007 Lausanne, Switzerland ITU-AT/002-2016: FETRI vs. Alistair and Jonathan Brownlee and Competition Jury of the Elite Men

More information

The Thirty-First Annual. Rules. Prepared By: Elizabeth Murad, Chair. Faculty Advisor: Professor Evelyn M. Tenenbaum

The Thirty-First Annual. Rules. Prepared By: Elizabeth Murad, Chair. Faculty Advisor: Professor Evelyn M. Tenenbaum The Thirty-First Annual Rules Prepared By: Elizabeth Murad, Chair Faculty Advisor: Professor Evelyn M. Tenenbaum TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... 3 Purpose and History Organization and Information Entrance

More information

Big 12 Baseball Replay In-Game Guidelines and Process

Big 12 Baseball Replay In-Game Guidelines and Process Big 12 Baseball Replay In-Game Guidelines and Process Overview Video replay review in the Big 12 Conference is designed to provide timely review of certain disputed calls in games at Big 12 venues that

More information

ON-FIELD DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES PART 1

ON-FIELD DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES PART 1 ON-FIELD DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES 2017-2018 357 ON-FIELD DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES PART 1 First Team Competitive Matches (FTCM) 1 For Players and Officials of Clubs of the Premier League, EFL, the National

More information

JANUARY 2013 LAW REVIEW ASSUMPTION OF RISK FOR OBSERVABLE BALLFIELD DEFECTS

JANUARY 2013 LAW REVIEW ASSUMPTION OF RISK FOR OBSERVABLE BALLFIELD DEFECTS ASSUMPTION OF RISK FOR OBSERVABLE BALLFIELD DEFECTS James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2013 James C. Kozlowski As illustrated by the cases described herein, where the land is as safe or dangerous as it appears

More information

Filing Fee: $88.00 Category: A

Filing Fee: $88.00 Category: A 04-02-/10 14:00 FROM- T-006 P0001/0008 F-555 I J \ \..' - '~..._~v"/ Samuel A. Diddle, ISB No. 4967 EBERLE, BERLIN, KADING, TURNBOW & MCKLVEEN, CDTD. 1111 West Jefferson Street, Suite 530 Post Office Box

More information

DISCIPLINE, PROTEST, GRIEVANCE AND APPEAL PROCEDURES Updated with changes approved at the February 22, 2015 GBM

DISCIPLINE, PROTEST, GRIEVANCE AND APPEAL PROCEDURES Updated with changes approved at the February 22, 2015 GBM DISCIPLINE, PROTEST, GRIEVANCE AND APPEAL PROCEDURES Updated 2.26.2015 with changes approved at the February 22, 2015 GBM 4.1. INTRODUCTION PURPOSE The purpose of the STYSA Discipline, Protest and Grievance

More information

LAW REVIEW APRIL 1992 CONTROL TEST DEFINES INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR OR EMPLOYEE SPORTS OFFICIAL

LAW REVIEW APRIL 1992 CONTROL TEST DEFINES INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR OR EMPLOYEE SPORTS OFFICIAL CONTROL TEST DEFINES INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR OR EMPLOYEE SPORTS OFFICIAL James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1992 James C. Kozlowski As illustrated by the Lynch decision described herein, the control test determines

More information

THE JEFFREY G. MILLER NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

THE JEFFREY G. MILLER NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 OFFICIAL RULES (October 13, 2018) The following represent the official rules of The Jeffrey G. Miller National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition ( Rules ). RULE I. ORGANIZATION OF THE NATIONAL

More information

JUDGEMENT. [1] The applicant, a man aged 68 this year, was employed by the. respondent for many years as a product manager.

JUDGEMENT. [1] The applicant, a man aged 68 this year, was employed by the. respondent for many years as a product manager. IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO J463/97 In the matter between : B SCHWEITZER Applicant and WACO DISTRIBUTORS Respondent JUDGEMENT ZONDO J : Introduction [1] The applicant,

More information

THE ADVOCACY DEPARTMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF DENVER STURM COLLEGE OF LAW PRESENTS THE ADVOCATES CUP. A Trial Advocacy Tournament For 1Ls, 2Ls and 3Ls

THE ADVOCACY DEPARTMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF DENVER STURM COLLEGE OF LAW PRESENTS THE ADVOCATES CUP. A Trial Advocacy Tournament For 1Ls, 2Ls and 3Ls THE ADVOCACY DEPARTMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF DENVER STURM COLLEGE OF LAW PRESENTS THE ADVOCATES CUP A Trial Advocacy Tournament For 1Ls, 2Ls and 3Ls TOURNAMENT RULES THE ADVOCATES CUP Presented by The

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA GAMING CENTERS, INC., a Florida Corporation; and WEST FLAGLER ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Florida Limited Partnership, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME

More information

ON-FIELD REGULATIONS SECTION THREE: PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CATEGORY 5 GENERAL CHARGES. 2 Nothing in this Section Three shall preclude:

ON-FIELD REGULATIONS SECTION THREE: PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CATEGORY 5 GENERAL CHARGES. 2 Nothing in this Section Three shall preclude: ON-FIELD REGULATIONS SECTION THREE: PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CATEGORY 5 GENERAL 1 Each Affiliated Association must set out in its rules or regulations a copy of this Section Three, which is to be followed

More information

HNBA 21 ST Annual Uvaldo Herrera National Moot Court Competition

HNBA 21 ST Annual Uvaldo Herrera National Moot Court Competition HNBA 21 ST Annual Uvaldo Herrera National Moot Court Competition RULES AND PROCEDURES Las Vegas, Nevada March 16-18, 2016 A. ADMINISTRATION 1. Organization The Hispanic National Bar Association National

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FAIRWAYS DEVELOPMENT OF NORTHERN MICHIGAN, INC., and RESORT NORTH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., UNPUBLISHED November 12, 2009 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 286680 Emmet Circuit

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2002 MARLENE SEELBINDER and JAMES SEELBINDER, etc., Appellants, v. CASE NO. 5D00-3308 COUNTY OF VOLUSIA, etc., Appellee.

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 113,580 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee/Cross-appellant,

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 113,580 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee/Cross-appellant, NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 113,580 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee/Cross-appellant, v. JACK R. LAPOINTE, Appellant/Cross-appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal

More information

6. Officials should maintain a high level of personal hygiene and should maintain a professional appearance at all times.

6. Officials should maintain a high level of personal hygiene and should maintain a professional appearance at all times. CODE OF CONDUCT FOR OFFICIALS The ATP, the Grand Slam Tournaments, the ITF and the WTA as members of the Joint Certification Programme require a high standard of professionalism from all Certified Officials

More information