text:
Hard Rock Hotel Ibiza to Open
Wednesday May 28th, 2014 - 10:51AM
These are shortcuts to your favorite social networking and bookmark sites. Add this story to your Facebook page, del.icio.us, DiggIt, and many others!
IBIZA, SPAIN—Hard Rock International will open its first European hotel, Hard Rock Hotel Ibiza, located here in mid -une.
"The synergies between Hard Rock's key differentiator, music, and Ibiza's distinguished scene as a famed cultural center for electronic dance sound and a renowned hub for international artists make for a perfect marriage," said Hamish Dodds, CEO of Hard Rock International. "We look forward to enhancing the destination's celebrated nightlife bringing unmatched hospitality to our new location on the beautiful shore of Playa d'en Bossa."
Hard Rock Hotel Ibiza will offer live music and DJ performances throughout the property and a 2,500-guest outdoor concert terrace, with artists such as Ellie Goulding, UB40, Snoop Dogg and Robin Thicke joining the summer lineup.
In addition to live music events, the 493-room property will offer brand-wide Hard Rock amenities and exceptional innovative offerings, such as the Body Rock workout facility, 600-person meeting convention center, spa, music memorabilia and Rock Shop featuring merchandise.
Tags: Hard Rock International • Hard Rock Hotel Ibiza • Hospitality • Amenities • Openings •
The Hotel Business team just returned from this year's HX: The Hotel Experience, which was held in New York City at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center. As we usually do post-event, we talk amongst ourselves about trends we noticed at the show, held in conjunction with BDNY. And while the latter—and now larger—show was abundant with design trends (let's just say blue seemed the prevalent color; bold, geometric forms the dominant shape; and metallics a common thread…pun intended!), the more traditional "hotel" side of the convention center had its own story to tell.
Best Western Names Board Chairman »
Four Seasons Plans First Ski Resort in French Alps
IHG to Launch InterContinental Brand in Laos
Choice Hotels Reveals 2017 Travel Outlook
John Hardy Group Adds to Leadership Team
AccorHotels Grows Footprint, Buys Stake in Banyan Tree
Access or Sign-Up for a
Digital Subscription
Click Here


text:
The Department of Health and Human Services signaled in a recent regulation that it plans to issue rules regarding state laws applicable to health insurance navigators, assisters and certified application counselors under the Affordable Care Act. Seventeen states have passed laws for navigators that go beyond federal rules, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
Full Story:The Washington Post (tiered subscription model)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Hawthorne File Box
- Free Fast Shipping
- Free Fast Shipping
- Overview
This handsome box helps you organize your workspace, while also adding tremendous style and a cohesive, restful look.
- Made of MDF covered in canvas and faux leather.
- Aluminum rivets with a brass finish.
- Dimensions & Care
- 24" wide x 16.25" high
- Wipe with a soft dry cloth.
- Shipping & Return Info
This is a general shipping item.
Shipping Information
Hassle Free Returns
To make this gift-giving season a little merrier, we are extending our Returns & Exchange Policy. For all items purchased between Oct. 21 and Dec. 24, 2016, you'll have until January 31, 2017 to return the item for a refund of the merchandise value. Just make sure to bring your proof of purchase or gift receipt. Quick Ship upholstery items are excluded from the Extended Holiday Return Policy. You have 7 days to return your Quick Ship upholstery item for a full refund or exchange.
The following items are non-eligible for returns or exchanges:
- Monogrammed items
- Mattresses
- Gift cards
- Made to Order items, including custom rugs and furniture
- Final Sale items (identified by a price ending in $.X7 or $.X9)
- Items damaged through normal wear and tear.
Delivery fees are non-refundable and prior purchases are not eligible for price adjustments.
For more information, view our full Returns & Exchange Policy.
Also in this Collection
Hawthorne Desk Blotter
Desk Blotter
- Free Fast Shipping


text:
Mechanics in Nigeria.According to Twitter User @SlymanAbkr, a Mechanic driving a customer's hilux bashed his uncle's 2 weeks old car. He then started rolling on the floor begging. The guy said the mechanic has since been arrested.But why the arrest? That can only happen in Africa! If
you hit someone's car,you exchange details,an arrest should only happen if the driver absconds.Don't be surprised if the driver gets locked up!


text:
Amazon.com Plans 1-million Square Foot Warehouse in Middletown, Delaware
"We welcome Amazon's expansion in Delaware, which will mean a significant number of jobs for many skilled and talented Delawareans who want to get to work," said Governor Jack Markell. "The company's expansion is a credit to the hard work taking place throughout the state to attract top-notch employers."
The Middletown facility will be Amazon's second large warehouse in Delaware. Amazon opened its first facility, called a "fulfillment center" in New Castle in 1997. The company currently employs hundreds of full-time workers at that 200,000 square-foot warehouse.
"We look forward to opening our second facility in Delaware this year, creating more than 850 new jobs in the state," said Dave Clark, vice president, global customer fulfillment. "We're grateful to state, county and local leaders who have committed to Amazon jobs and investment."
In December, the Delaware Economic Development Office awarded the company $3.47 million from the Delaware Strategic Fund to support the expansion; $2.12 million will help create new jobs at the Middletown site. The fund will also contribute to the company's infrastructure investment, equal to 3 percent of the total capital expenditures, or a maximum of $1.35 million.
A separate grant for up to $4 million from the Delaware New Jobs Infrastructure Fund will be used to build extensions of public roads to serve the project, improve traffic flow and provide access to additional properties for future economic development.
Amazon will also receive a real estate tax abatement from the town of Middletown for the next 10 years.
Taiwan-Based Everest Textile USA Plans Manufacturing Facility In Forest City, North Carolina
Canada-Based Magna International Plans Assembly Plant In Spartanburg County, South Carolina
Where Should Aerospace Companies Invest? Evaluating Aerospace Manufacturing Hubs
Scott Thompson, PwC
2016 Top States for Doing Business: Georgia Back in Top Spot Again
Steve Stackhouse-Kaelble
Regional Talent Attraction Study Results: It's Not All About Core Cities
Joshua Wright, Emsi
U.S. Manufacturers Attempting to Upskill Their Workforces
Geraldine Gambale, Area Development Magazine
Developing Loyalty Among a Millennial Workforce
Geraldine Gambale, Area Development Magazine
2016 Gold & Silver Shovel Awards Recognize States That Have Garnered High-Impact Economic Development Projects
Geraldine Gambale, Area Development Magazine
Mark Crawford
Technological Innovation Essential to U.S. Manufacturing Growth
Geraldine Gambale, Area Development Magazine
Which Countries Have Lowest Business Costs?
Geraldine Gambale, Area Development Magazine
Ideas for Industry Innovation Ecosystems Put Into Play
Craig Giffi, Deloitte LLP
Michelle Drew Rodriguez, Deloitte Services LP
12th Annual Consultants Survey: Clients' Robust New Facility/Expansion Plans RevealedAll Studies/Research/Papers
Geraldine Gambale, Area Development Magazine
Most Read
- Higher Ed for Hire: Providing Fuel for High-demand, High-skilled Jobs
- Digital Transformation in the Manufacturing Sector
- Critical Site Selection Factor #1: Availability of Skilled Labor
- Location Notebook: Kentucky Is Serious about Advanced Manufacturing
- For Optimized Building Design, Consider the Key Priorities
- Regional Talent Attraction Study Results: It's Not All About Core Cities
- Frontline: Women Will Help Fill the Manufacturing Skills Gap
2016 Top States for Doing Business: Georgia Back in Top Spot Again
Leading Locations for 2016: San Francisco-Redwood City-South San Francisco Ranks First Among MSAs
2016 Gold & Silver Shovel Awards Recognize States That Have Garnered High-Impact Economic Development Projects
30th Annual Corporate Survey & 12th Annual Consultants Survey Results


text:
05/16/2012Provided by Citysearch -
I don't write many review, but I hope this one makes the chef and server more aware about how important it is a delicious meal, well presented and with good atmosphere. Our expectations were not met, poor presentation, food was just ordinary, wine list was overly price...never felt the Toscana Warmth and finding parking
was next to impossible. ;-)


text:
What are you most proud of? I am proud that I am able to reuse and reduce buying material for my crafts What advice would you give someone starting this project? More pictures are present in my blog. We can tweak the pattern a little to get a wider/deeper pockets or can add more length/pockets to the organizer
No completed Q&As yet.


text:
CE3 2016 Post-Show
Welcome back to the seventh and final year of CE3! Rewatch everything here.Learn more »
Halo CE3 is the premier stage for you to show off new content in Halo: Custom Edition! View and browse hundreds of maps in our all new map archive.Learn more »
View what CE3 is all about and check out our long history over these past seven years.Learn more »


text:
Need a Reverse T3 Test in Hilton Head, SC? Simply order online 24/7 and get a fast, affordable Reverse T3 Test at a lab near you (Find More Locations):
What is a Reverse T3 Test?
A Reverse T3 Test is a blood test that measures the level of Reverse T3. People in Hilton Head, SC order the Reverse T3 Test for general screening or ongoing tracking.
How much does a Reverse T3 Test cost?
For current Reverse T3 Test prices in Hilton Head, SC, please CLICK HERE.
What does a Reverse T3 Test lab report look like?
For a Reverse T3 Test sample lab report, please CLICK HERE.
We are delighted to offer the Reverse T3 Test in Hilton Head, SC.
Reverse T3 Test in other cities near Hilton Head, SC:Beaufort | Bluffton | Coosawatchie | Dale | Green Pond | Hilton Head Island | Ladys Island | Lobeco | Okatie | Port Royal | Ridgeland | Saint Helena Island | Seabrook | Sheldon | Yemassee
Limited Time Offer!
Save 5% on Your Order Today Only
Use Promo Code XTPUDSKLC
Offer Expires in


text:
Faerie Claws
this wiki
Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you've made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Claw that sometimes confuses enemy.
Faerie Claws (ようせいのつめ or 妖精の爪, Yōsei no Tsume?), also known as Charm, Charm Claw, Elven, Fairy's Claw, Fairy Claws, is a recurring weapon in the series. It is generally a mid-ranked claw weapon that usually inflicts the Confuse status effect, in addition to slightly boosting other stats other than attack.
Final Fantasy IIIEdit
Faerie Claws is a high-ranked knuckle that provide 37 attack in the NES version and 89 attack in all other versions, as well as +2 Intellect and Mind. It can only be found in the Ancient Ruins and equipped by the Onion Knight, Monk, and Black Belt.
Final Fantasy IVEdit
Faerie Claws is a mid-ranked claw that provides +3 Agility, a 30% chance to inflict Confuse when attacking with it, and deals extra damage when attacking Giants. It does not provide any attack power much like every other claw, and can be used by Yang and Edge. It can be found in the Lodestone Cavern.
In the 3D versions, the Faerie Claws provide 5 Attack, 95 Accuracy, +3 Stamina, 30% chance of inflicting Confuse, and dealing extra damage against Giant-type enemies. It is still found in the Lodestone Cavern, but only Yang can equip it.
On the Easy Type version, it was renamed to Tempting Claw.
Final Fantasy IV -Interlude-Edit
Faerie Claws returns retaining the same properties as before, although only granting 5 attack, and is one of Yang's initial weapons. It can be bought for 600 gil at Damcyan or Fabul.
Final Fantasy IV: The After YearsEdit
Faerie Claws is a mid-ranked claw that provides the same bonuses as in the original game, but no longer deals extra damage against Giant-type enemies. It can be found in a chest in the Impact Crater and is usable by Yang, Edge, and Ursula.
Final Fantasy Mystic QuestEdit
Charm Claw is the mid-ranked claw that provides a base power of 37.5, an attack power of 45~150, +5 Magic, and can inflict Poison, Paralyze, Sleep, Confuse, and Blind. It is obtained from a chest in the Mine.
Final Fantasy Airborne BrigadeEdit
Final Fantasy Record KeeperEdit
Final Fantasy Brave ExviusEdit
fairy is a type of mythical being or legendary creature, a form of spirit, often described as metaphysical, supernatural, or preternatural.A


text:
The U.S. could reach the $16.4 trillion debt ceiling just weeks after Election Day, according to an analysis from the Bipartisan Policy Center. Many analysts think the government can borrow under the limit
well into next year, but the BPC finds that "unexpected circumstances" might cause the government to hit the debt ceiling much sooner.
Full Story:Hill, The


text:
Recently added item(s)×
You have no items in your shopping cart.
FREE Shipping on Orders Over $100 Earn 3.5% with All-Star Rewards
Be the first to review this product
Regular Price:
Special Price
56% off
* Required Fields
Add New Address
In stock
Stylish, supportive and designed specifically for women, the K2 Cassette is an ideal binding for the intermediate rider.
Features include:
Question will be displayed after moderation.
Be the first to hear about new products, special offers, latest news and sweepstakes by subscribing to our email updates.
Visit Us At:


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
February 25, 2013
MICHAEL ROSEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,v.CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-8257-10.
Submitted September 11, 2012
Before Judges Messano, Ostrer and Kennedy.
The opinion of the court was delivered by KENNEDY, J.A.D.
Plaintiff appeals from a Law Division order dismissing with prejudice the counts in his complaint alleging that defendant violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20 (count two); that defendant's refusal to accept cash during a flight constituted unlawful "discrimination against low income individuals" (count three); and that defendant, by refusing to accept cash during the flight, prevented plaintiff from enjoying in-flight amenities, and caused plaintiff to suffer "severe mental anguish and emotional distress" (count four). The order denied defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's breach of contract claim (count one), but plaintiff later voluntarily dismissed this count making the order appealable as of right.*fn1
The motion judge determined that plaintiff's claims under the CFA, and other state tort claims, were preempted by a specific clause of the federal Airline Deregulation Act (ADA), 49 U.S.C.A. § 41713(b)(1), and that plaintiff's claim for class certification was baseless. We affirm.
We derive the following facts from the record. On December 1, 2009, defendant instituted a cashless cabin policy for accounting and security purposes. Defendant informed the public of this change in policy by issuing a nationwide press release, and through pre-boarding announcements and announcements after completion of the boarding process. The motion judge recited other pertinent facts, which are undisputed:
[In] 2009 plaintiff Michael Rosen purchased a round trip flight ticket from Newark, New Jersey to Los Angeles, California with the defendant Continental Airlines. While on board the flight from Newark to Los Angeles plaintiff purchased a headset by credit card from defendant for in-flight movies.
Prior to purchasing the headset the passengers on the flight were advised that headsets could be used on future Continental flights. On January 6th, 2011, plaintiff boarded the return flight from Honolulu, Hawaii to Newark. On that flight the plaintiff attempted to use the headset purchased on the prior flight and discovered the headset was not compatible with "jacks" and he would have to purchase a new headset which would be compatible with the available jacks.
Plaintiff tried to purchase a new headset with cash. But defendant's representative indicated that the defendant was only capable of accepting payments by credit card or debit card. Plaintiff later tried to purchase a cocktail and was told that Continental had a no cash policy on its airplane and that he could not make any purchases unless he possessed a debit or credit card.
Since plaintiff did not have in his possession either debit or credit card he was unable to make any purchases on the flight.
Plaintiff filed suit on October 4, 2010, in the Law Division, asserting the causes of action noted above. On defendant's motion, the case was initially removed to the federal district court, but was later remanded to the Law Division, where defendant then moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e). Plaintiff opposed the motion, and filed a cross-motion for leave to file an amended complaint asserting a class action. After hearing argument, Judge Denise A. Cobham issued an order dismissing, with prejudice, the second, third and fourth counts of plaintiff's complaint, and denying plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert a class action. This appeal followed.
In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 4:6-2(e), courts search the allegations of the pleading in depth and with liberality to determine "whether a cause of action is 'suggested' by the facts." Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989) (quoting Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 109 N.J. 189, 192 (1988)). We must therefore determine "whether the fundament of a cause of action may be gleaned even from an obscure statement of claim, opportunity being given to amend if necessary." Ibid. (citation omitted). A pleading should be dismissed if it states no basis for relief and discovery would not provide one. Camden Cnty.
Energy Recovery Assocs. v. N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 320 N.J. Super. 59, 64 (App. Div. 1999), aff'd, 170 N.J. 246 (2001).*fn2
Guided by these principles, we turn to plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff argues that defendant's cashless policy violates the CFA "by falsely and/or incorrectly advertising that the headset could be used on future Continental flights" and "by refusing to accept [his] lawful tender of payment in order to purchase another headset and/or alcoholic beverages." We disagree. Such claims are expressly preempted by the ADA. 49 U.S.C.A. § 41713(b)(1).
Under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2, state laws that "'interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of congress, made in pursuance of the constitution' are invalid." Wis. Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597, 604, 111 S. Ct. 2476, 2481, 115 L. Ed. 2d 532, 542 (1991) (quoting Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat) 1, 211, 6 L. Ed. 23, 73 (1824)). Thus,"when the mandates of federal law and state law are not consistent, the state law must yield." Feldman v. Lederle Lab., 125 N.J. 117, 133 (1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1219, 112 S. Ct. 3027, 120 L. Ed. 2d 898 (1992). The preemption doctrine applies equally to common law and state statutory law. Id. at l34 (citing Chicago N.W. Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 311, 325-26, 101 S. Ct. 1124, 1134, 67 L. Ed. 2d 258, 270 (1981)).
In 1978, Congress enacted the ADA, based on the determination that "'maximum reliance on competitive market forces' would best further 'efficiency, innovation, and low prices' as well as 'variety [and] quality . . . of air transportation services[.]'" Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 378, 112 S. Ct. 2031, 2034, 119 L. Ed. 2d 157, 164 (1992). To ensure that the states would not undermine the federal deregulation scheme with regulations of their own, the ADA contains a preemption provision that prohibits states from interfering with the deregulation process:
(b) Preemption. - (1) Except as provided in this subsection, a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of at least 2 States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier that may provide air transportation under this subpart.
[49 U.S.C.A. § 41713(b)(1) (amending 49 U.S.C.A. § 1305(a)).]
The broad preemption principles set forth in 49 U.S.C.A. § 41713(b)(1) preclude any state cause of action relating to a service provided by an air carrier. Hodges v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 336 (5th Cir. 1995) ("state enforcement actions having a connection with or reference to airline 'rates, routes or services' are preempted"). The United States Supreme Court has determined that the ADA preempts state law claims. See, e.g., American Airlines v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219, 221, 115 S. Ct. 817, 820, 130 L. Ed. 2d 715, 721 (1995); Morales, supra, 504 U.S. at 383, 112 S. Ct. at 2036-37, 119 L. Ed. 2d at 167. The United States Supreme Court's interpretation of a federal statute is, of course, controlling. See Dewey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 121 N.J. 69, 79 (1990).
In Wolens, supra, the Supreme Court held that the purpose of the clause is "to leave largely to the airlines themselves, and not at all to States, the selection and design of marketing mechanisms appropriate to the furnishing of air transportation services . . . ." 513 U.S. at 228, 115 S. Ct. at 824, 130 L. Ed. 2d. at 726 (holding that the ADA preempts state law claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act against an airline arising out of American Airlines' retroactive modification to its frequent flyer program). Of particular import is the Court's holding that:
The ADA's preemption clause, § 1305(a)(1), read together with the FAA's saving clause, stops States from imposing their own substantive standards with respect to rates, routes, or services, but not from affording relief to a party who claims and proves that an airline dishonored a term the airline itself stipulated. [Id. at 232-33, 115 S. Ct. at 826, 130 L. Ed. 2d. at 728.]*fn3
Here, resolution of the preemption issue hinges on whether the sale of a headset and an alcoholic beverage "relat[es] to price, routes, or service[.]" We hold that it does. In Morales, supra, the Supreme Court gave broad meaning to the phrase "relating to rates, routes, or services" contained in the ADA's preemption clause, and indicated that it prohibits states from taking any "enforcement actions having a connection with, or reference to, airline 'rates, routes, or services[,]'" whether through laws specifically addressed to the airline industry or through more general statutes. 504 U.S. at 384, 112 S. Ct. at 2037, 119 L. Ed. 2d at 167-68. Therefore, the Court determined: (1) that "state enforcement actions having connection with, or reference to" carrier "rates, routes, or services are pre-empted," (2) that such preemption may occur even if a state law's effect on rates, routes or services "is only indirect," (3) that, in respect to preemption, it makes no difference whether a state law is "consistent" or "inconsistent" with federal regulation, and (4) that preemption occurs at least where state laws have a "significant impact" related to Congress' de-regulatory and pre-emption related objectives. [Rowe v. N.H. Motor Transp. Ass'n, 552 U.S. 364, 370-71, 128 S. Ct. 989, 995, 169 L. Ed. 2d 933, 939 (2008) (citing Morales, supra, 504 U.S. at 384, 386-87, 390, 112 S. Ct. at 2037-38, 2040, 119 L. Ed. 2d at 167-69, 171).]
Citing Morales, we have held that CFA claims based on ticket prices reflecting surcharges concern airline "rates, routes or services" and are therefore preempted. Vail v. Pan Am Corp., 260 N.J. Super. 292, 297-98 (App. Div. 1992). In Vail, we dismissed a CFA claim on preemption grounds where the airline imposed a $5.00 per ticket surcharge for an enhanced security program that allegedly did not exist or had never been implemented. Vail, supra, 260 N.J. Super. at 299-302. We stated that "[p]ermitting plaintiffs' claims . . . vitiates the exclusive federal occupation of the field of aviation, and frustrates the broad preemptive purpose of § 1305(a)(1) to create a unified system of airline regulation." Id. at 302; see also Blackner v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 311 N.J. Super. 10, 14 (App. Div.) (affirming the trial court's dismissal on preemption grounds of plaintiff's complaint, which alleged that a $60.00 surcharge for replacement of a lost airline ticket bore no reasonable relationship to any cost incurred by the airline to replace the lost ticket), certif. denied, 156 N.J. 405 (1998).
Plaintiff argues that Morales cautions against finding preemption "in cases where the states' laws impact on an air carrier's services is 'tenuous, remote or peripheral.' Morales, supra, 504 U.S. at 390, 112 S. Ct. at 2040, 119 L. Ed. 2d at 172." This argument, however, was rejected by the United States Supreme Court in Wolens. There, the Court stated, "[w]e need not dwell on the question whether plaintiffs' complaints state claims 'relating to [air carrier] rates, routes, or services.' Morales, we are satisfied, does not countenance the Illinois Supreme Court's separation of matters 'essential' from matters unessential to airline operations." Wolens, supra, 513 U.S. at 226, 115 S. Ct. at 823, 130 L. Ed. 2d. at 724. Wolens clarified that a breach of contract claim should not be preempted, see id. at 228, 115 S. Ct. at 824, 130 L. Ed. 2d at 725, but, as we stated earlier, plaintiff's claim for breach of contract was voluntarily dismissed below, and is therefore not appealable.
Although the Supreme Court broadly interprets the scope of the ADA's preemption provision, the Court has yet to define what constitutes a "service." Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Duncan, 531 U.S. 1058, 1058, 121 S. Ct. 650, 650, 148 L. Ed. 2d 571, 571-72 (2000) (O'Connor, J., dissenting from the denial of certiorari). There are two "directly conflicting positions" respecting its definitions among the courts of appeals. Ibid. The minority view construes "service" narrowly. Ibid. (citing Duncan v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 208 F.3d 1112, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding "that the term 'service' encompasses 'the prices, schedules, origins and destinations of the point-to-point transportation of passengers, cargo, or mail,' but not the 'provision of in-flight beverages, personal assistance to passengers, the handling of luggage, and similar amenities.' Charas v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 160 F.3d 1259, 1261 (9th Cir. 1998)"), cert. denied, Northwest Airlines, supra, 531 U.S. 1058, 121 S. Ct. 650, 148 L. Ed. 2d 571).
In contrast, the majority view defines "service" much more broadly, and includes "'contractual features of air transportation,' including 'ticketing, boarding procedures, provision of food and drink, and baggage handling.'" Ibid. (quoting Hodges, supra, 44 F.3d at 336); see also Air Transport Ass'n of Am. v. Cuomo, 520 F.3d 218, 223 (2d Cir. 2008) (confirming that the "majority" of the circuit courts hold "that the term refers to the provision or anticipated provision of labor from the airline to its passengers and encompasses matters such as boarding procedures, baggage handling, and food and drink -- matters incidental to and distinct form the actual transportation of passengers"). Given the broad meaning the United States Supreme Court has already accorded to the phrase encompassing the term "service[,]" we determine that the broad, majority definition more closely comports with congressional intent. See Wolens, supra, 513 U.S. at 228, 115 S. Ct. at 824, 130 L. Ed. 2d. at 726.
Employing the definition accepted by the majority of the circuit courts, then, we determine that plaintiff's claims, under the CFA, are preempted because the claims relate to a "service." As explained above, the term "service" includes "[e]lements of the air carrier service bargain[,]" which "include[s] provision of food and drink." Hodges, supra, 44 F.3d at 336. Further, the provision of an airline entertainment headset falls squarely within that definition, as well.
Based on our analysis of the statutory language and case law, we are also satisfied plaintiff's common law fraud and tort claims are preempted by Section 41713(b)(1), as they "relate to a price, route, or service of any airline carrier" involved in the sale of airline goods. Any contrary interpretation would be unsupported by the language of the statute, longstanding principles of statutory construction, and the expressed reasoning of the United States Supreme Court. See Morales, supra, 504 U.S. at 384-85, 112 S. Ct. at 2037, 119 L. Ed. 2d at 168; see also Wolens, supra, 513 U.S. at 232, 115 S. Ct. at 826, 130 L. Ed. 2d at 728; Vail, supra, 260 N.J. Super. at 298. Accordingly, we affirm the motion court's dismissal of these claims.
Plaintiff argues that the motion court improperly denied his cross-motion to certify a class action consisting of claims of all low income individuals and unaccompanied minors that have traveled on Continental flights since the institution of the cashless cabin policy and have been deprived of the opportunity to purchase amenities on those flights. We need not address this issue because we have already held that plaintiff's claims are preempted by the ADA. We add only the following.
As a threshold issue, plaintiff's putative class action is improper, because plaintiff himself lacks standing as a member of the putative class. Rule 4:32-1 provides that "one or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties[.]" It is well established that, in order to bring a class action lawsuit, the named representative must individually have standing to bring their claims. See R. 4:32-1(a)(3); Holmes v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp., 213 F.3d 124, 135 (3d Cir. 2000) (plaintiff who lacks the personalized, redressable injury required for standing to assert claims on his own behalf would also lack standing to assert similar claims on behalf of class); Laufer v. U. S. Life Ins. Co. in City of New York, 385 N.J. Super. 172, 186 (App. Div. 2006). Consequently, "if the named plaintiffs bringing class action claims do not individually have standing to bring those claims, the case should be dismissed prior to the class certification process." Ramirez v. STi Prepaid LLC, 644 F. Supp. 2d 496, 504 (D.N.J. 2009).
Plaintiff's putative class would consist of unaccompanied minors, low income individuals and others who are not in possession of credit cards. Plaintiff does not have standing as the class representative, however, because plaintiff is neither an unaccompanied minor nor a person without a credit card. It is undisputed that plaintiff has a credit card and used it to pay defendant's baggage fee and the fee for the headset on his previous flight. Consequently, plaintiff does not have standing to bring these claims on behalf of the other members of the class.
The remainder of plaintiff's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
I would like to hire a YouTube Expert
This project is ending today and has an average bid price of $129 USD.Get free quotes for a project like this
Project Budget$30 - $250 USD
Total Bids28
Project Description
I am looking to have a youtube page set up.
I would like bids on this project.
Skills Required
Looking to make some money?
- Set your budget and the timeframe
- Outline your proposal
- Get paid for your work
Hire Freelancers who also bid on this project
Looking for work?
Work on projects like this and make money from home!Sign Up Now
- Forbes
- The New York Times
- Time
- Wall Street Journal
- Times Online


text:
Register here for ERT training- Saturday, November 5- 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. at the Meridian District Office in Meridian, Mississippi. Online registration closes at noon Thursday, November 3.
1. Trained early response teams (ERT) will be needed first. Wait for further details on staging areas and locations ready to receive assistance.
2. Teams must be self-sufficient. Many areas lack electricity, access to food and drinking water, supplies and gasoline. Once staging areas and housing for teams is known that will be communicated.
3. Bring tarps, tools, etc. for covering homes and supplies and debris removal.
4. Determine whether or not each member of your team has insurance. United Methodist Volunteers in Mission (UMVIM) insurance is secondary to your existing coverage and has a $50 deductible.
5. Continue to monitor email and the conference website for emerging detail.
For more information, contact Rev. David Newton via cell phone at 228.216.6567, or via email at firstname.lastname@example.com. You can also send mail to:
P.O. Box 8704
Moss Point, MS 39562


text:
New PC-11 public awareness and education effort to provide clarity to
the many questions surrounding the new category of heavy duty motor oil
Late last week the ASTM International's Automotive Lubricants
Subcommittee approved the new Proposed Category 11 (API CK-4 and API
FA-4) specifications for the next generation of heavy duty diesel engine
oils to be licensed on December 1, 2016. To help prepare the industry
for the change, the Chevron Products Company, a Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
division, launched its PC-11
Public Education Campaign dedicated to building awareness and
clarity around PC-11. As a result of extensive research across the
country, Chevron has made a commitment over the next 12 months to not
only keep the industry informed but also to "explain PC-11" clearly and
simply. Chevron is committed to be a resource for the industry and
end-users, to provide one place to turn for answers.
"Based on our research, awareness of the new category of oil is low, and
among those who are aware, there is a lot of confusion," said Shawn
Whitacre, Senior Staff Engineer of Engine Oil Technology at Chevron
Lubricants, and chairman of the ASTM Heavy-Duty Engine Oil
Classification Panel, which is tasked with the final development of the
PC-11 oil requirements. "Once those who rely on these oils are made
aware of PC-11, and that the new category is actually two subcategories,
there are a lot of questions and concerns. NOW is the time to help the
industry and our customers get ahead of the change and prepare for it."
Online Resource Hub
The Chevron education campaign will include a new website that debuts
today – PC-11Explained.com.
Chevron's new website will provide ongoing expert commentary, multimedia
resources, news and insights on issues surrounding the new diesel
heavy-duty motor oil (HDMO) categories, including:
Why the Oil Change?
In 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced regulations
intended to reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions and mandate
fuel economy improvements for medium and heavy-duty engines and
vehicles. Diesel engine design is undergoing a period of significant
change to meet these requirements, and consequently heavy-duty engine
oil is making an upgrade to its current oil category, API CJ-4. For the
first time, a new category of heavy duty engine oils will actually be
two: CK-4 and FA-4. CK-4 (aka PC-11A) will be both backward and forward
compatible. The second category, FA-4 (aka PC-11B), will be specifically
for the new engine models. These new categories will help in a number of
ways, including:
Whitacre adds: "With the new specifications for PC-11, we want to help
our customers and others in the industry to understand all the issues
surrounding this transition. We also want them to know that this is a
change for the better. The new API CK-4 and API FA-4 products are better
oils. They will better protect engines, provide better fuel economy, and
reduce GHG emission compared to today's oils. Education around PC-11 is
a top priority for Chevron, and we are rolling out a robust program that
will provide easy access to everything you need to know to prepare for
the future."
Chevron through the Delo product line continues to be a leader in
establishing progressively improved HDMO performance that help increase
engine durability, improve fuel economy and reduce emissions. Since
1987, the company has successfully led the introduction of seven
different categories from API CE through API CJ-4. Chevron executives
play an instrumental role in generating the industry consensus that must
be reached to continue moving forward.
About Chevron Products Company
Chevron Products Company is a division of an indirect, wholly owned
subsidiary of Chevron Corporation (NYSE: CVX) headquartered in San
Ramon, CA. A full line of lubrication and coolant products are
marketed through this organization. Select brands include Havoline®,
Delo® and Havoline Xpress Lube®. Chevron
Intellectual Property LLC owns patented technology in advanced
lubricants products, new generation base oil technology and coolants.
For more information go to: www.ChevronLubricants.com
View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151215006065/en/
Cohn & Wolfe for Chevron DeloRyan Donough, firstname.lastname@example.com
E&Ps Locking in Cash Flows and Sales Prices OPEC's agreement to cut production levels has kicked off a rush among shale oil companies to hedge their oil price risk above $50 for 2017 and 2018. The number of E&Ps selling oil for delivery next year has pushed the WTI forward curve into slight backwardation after two years of contango. Compare[Read More…]


text:
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, March 16, 2013. (Reuters)
You must sign in before you can post comments. If you are experiencing issues with your account please e-mail firstname.lastname@example.com.
Appeals court upholds NH law in Liberty Party challenge
Federal court denies remand under CAFA�s local controversy exception
MacDowell colony hosts Trump fear fest with Lena Dunham in NYC
UNH engineering students race to build the fastest Formula One car
Dartmouth's Orimolade named top Ivy defender
Wild coach and movie buff Bruce Boudreau has quite the bucket list
Subaru returns as title sponsor for 2017 Mt. Washington Hillclimb.
Ray Buckley, top Democrat in New Hampshire, makes bid to be DNC chair
Dartmouth professor warns of 'slow erosion of democratic norms' under Trump
Keene State College settles suit brought by nursing student
© 2016 Union Leader Corporation


text:
Get an overview of this hotel3-star hotel with full-service spa and free breakfast
Situated in Buk, this spa hotel is 0.1 mi (0.2 km) from Bukfurdo Health and Adventure Centre and within 3 mi (5 km) of Buk Football Field and Szapary Castle. Sonnetherme and Lutzmannsburg Church are also within 12 mi (20 km).
Hotel Features
A full-service spa, a restaurant, and a fitness center are available at this hotel. Free breakfast, free WiFi in public areas, and free self parking are also provided. Additionally, a bar/lounge, a spa tub, and a sauna are onsite.
Room Amenities
All 70 rooms offer balconies, refrigerators, and TVs with cable channels. Other amenities available to guests include hair dryers, showers, and phones.Information missing or incorrect? Tell us!Opens in a new window
Corvus Hotel Bük
Hotel Amenities
Hotel Amenities
In addition to a full-service spa, Corvus Hotel Bük features hot springs and a spa tub. The hotel offers a restaurant. A bar/lounge is on site where guests can unwind with a drink. Guests can enjoy a complimentary breakfast. Public areas are equipped with complimentary high-speed wireless Internet access.
This hot springs hotel also offers a fitness center, a sauna, and tour/ticket assistance. Onsite self parking is complimentary.
- 24-hour front desk
- Total number of rooms - 71
- Bar/lounge
- Coffee/tea in common areas
- Free breakfast
- Elevator/lift
- Fitness facilities
- Full-service spa
- Turkish bath/Hammam
- Hair salon
- Tours/ticket assistance
- Free WiFi
- Spa treatment room(s)
- Multilingual staff
- Garden
- Restaurant
- Free self parking
- Sauna
- Spa tub
- Television in common areas
Family Friendly Amenities
- Free Wi-Fi
- Rollaway/extra beds available
- Refrigerator
Available in some public areas: Free WiFi
Free self parking
Room Amenities
- Balcony
- Phone
- Refrigerator
- Daily housekeeping
- Private bathroom
- Hair dryer
- Shower only
- Desk
- Television
- Rollaway/extra beds available
- Cable TV service
Where to Eat
A complimentary breakfast is offered.
King Mathias Restaurant - This buffet restaurant specializes in Hungarian cuisine and serves breakfast and dinner.
Beatrix Bar - This bar serves light fare only.
Nearby Things to Do
Recreational amenities at the hotel include a spa tub, a sauna, and a fitness center.
The recreational activities listed below are available either on site or nearby; fees may apply.
- Golfing nearby
- Bicycle rentals nearby
- Hiking/biking trails nearby
- Mountain biking nearby
- Hot springs on site
Spa Services
Bukfurdo has massage/treatment rooms. Services include massages, body treatments, and manicures and pedicures. The spa is equipped with hot springs/mineral springs, a mud bath, and Turkish bath/hammam. A variety of treatment therapies are provided, including aromatherapy, hydrotherapy, and reflexology.
- Reflexology
- Manicures and pedicures
- Aromatherapy treatments
- Hydrotherapy treatments
- Mud bath in spa
- Hot springs/mineral springs in spa
- Massages
- Body treatments
Hotel Policies
Check-in time starts at 2:00 PM
Check-in time ends at midnight
Check-out time is 11:00 AM
Payment types
- Pets allowed
- Dogs only
You need to know
Extra-person charges may apply and vary depending on hotel policy.
Government-issued photo identification and a credit card or cash deposit are required at check-in for incidental charges.
Special requests are subject to availability upon check-in and may incur additional charges. Special requests cannot be guaranteed.
Hotel Name
- Corvus Bük
- Corvus Bük Buk
- Corvus Hotel Bük
- Corvus Hotel Bük Buk
National Rating
Hotelstars Union assigns an official star rating for properties in Hungary. This property is rated 3 stars.


text:
Sharp BQC-XGE1000U1 Replacement Projector Lamp With Cage Assembly
Part Number: BQC-XGE1000U1
Visit the manufacturer's web site to view their availability. The price is not yet available.* Product and pricing data are sourced from third parties for informational purposes only. We strive to provide correct information, but are not responsible for inaccuracies. Should you find any errors, please help us by reporting it here.


text:
|Publication number
|Publication type
|Publication date
|Jan 29, 1974
|Filing date
|Jun 28, 1972
|Priority date
|Jun 28, 1972
|Also published as
|Publication number
|H Cloyd
|Original Assignee
|Nosco Plastics
|Export Citation
|BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
|Patent Citations (8), Referenced by (22), Classifications (16)
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet
United States Patent 1191 Cloyd [75] Inventor:
[73] Assignee:
PLUG VALVE Harold S. Cloyd, Erie, Pa.
Nosco Plastics, Incorporated, Erie, Pa.
[ Jan. 29, 19%
3,678,960 7/1972 Leibinsohn 137/625.47 3,185,179 5/1965 Harautuneian 251/181 X 2,412,597 12/1946 Brewer 251/181 3,484,077 12/1969 251/181 3,012,752 12/1961 Buck 251/309 Primary Examiner-Harold W. Weakley Attorney, Agent, or Firm-'-Ra1ph Hammar [5 7] ABSTRACT A plastic plug valve for use in equipment for administering intravenous solutions and the like in which the plug is cammed into sealing engagement with the bore in the body by spring fingers preferably integral with the plug. The valve is intended to be used once and thrown away because the cost of washing and sterilization is greater than the cost'of the valve.
4 Claims, 4 Drawing Figures 22 Filed: June 28,1972
21 Appl. No.: 267,089
52 u.s.c1 251/181, 251/182, 251/309, 137/625.47 51 1111. C1. ..Fl6k 5/02 [58] Field of Search 251/181, 182,309; 137/625.47
[56] References Cited UNITED STATES PATENTS 2,832,562 4/1958 Myers 251/175 3,612,091 10/1971 Gramann 2,854,027 9/1958 Kaiser ..137/625.47X
PLUG VALVE This invention is a molded plastic plug valve in which the plug is cammed into sealing engagement with the bore in the valve body by spring fingers which are preferably integral with one end of the plug.
In the drawing,
FIG. 1 is a diagrammatic view of the plug valve for controlling one fluid,
FIG. 2 is a diagrammatic view of a valve for controlling two fluids,
FIG. 3 is a side elevation of a preferred valve with the upper half in section, and
FIG. 4 is an end view of the FIG. 3 valve.
In FIG. 1 the valve body member 1 has an inlet way la and an outlet way 2. Fluid flow is controlled by a plug member 3 rotatable in the body and having a way 4a which when rotated into register with the ways 1a and 2 allows the fluid to flow from the inlet way la to the outlet way 2.
In FIG. 2 the body 1 has inlet ways la and lb and an outlet way 2. The plug 3 has a way 4b which may be rotated into register with either inlet way la or lb and has outlet ways 4c and 4d which respectively register with the outlet way 2 when the way 4b registers with the ways la and 1b. The valves shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 are illustrative of standard plug valve design. These figures indicate fluid flow as distinguished from valve construction.
In FIGS. 3 and 4 the valve body 1 has an inlet way la and an outlet way 2 as shown in FIG. 1. At the center of the valve body is an axially extending tapered bore 5 which extends substantially the full length of the body and terminates within an axial extension 6 having an inwardly inclined annular wedge surface 7 at its outer end. The plug 3 which is rotatable in and complementary to the tapered bore 5, has a diametrically extending way 40 which may be rotated into and out of register with the ways la and 2. At one end the plug is provided with a handle 8. A cored out recess 9 at the handle end of the plug reduces the required amount of plastic. The end of the plug opposite the handle has a slot 14 extending axially inward to separate adjacent axially extending spring fingers 10 which terminate in outwardly inclined arcuate or annular wedge surfaces ll complementary to the wedge surfaces 7 of the body. The portions of the plug 3 which project axially beyond the bracket 12 respectively carry the handle 8 and the cam surfaces 11. The angular extent of each cam surface 11 is less than 180. The spring fingers 10 are axially extending protrusions supported only at one end by having one end integral with the plug, or in other words by being cantilevered to the plug. Each cam surface 11 is on the unsupported end of a finger. Each finger and its cam surface is angularly spaced from the adjacent finger and its cam surface.
As the plug is pressed into the tapered bore 5 of the valve body, the outer ends of the spring fingers 10 are radially compressed or deflected by engagement with the bore. Upon reaching the assembled position shown in FIG. 3, the outer ends of the spring fingers snap over the wedge surfaces 7 on the valve body. The compression is only partially relieved in the assembled position. Because the spring fingers are cantilevered to the valve plug 3, the compression develops a radially outward force which is transmitted from the cam surfaces 11 on the spring fingers to the cam surface 7 on the valve body. The radially outward force between these cam surfaces develops an axial force in the direction to pull the plug into sealing engagement with the tapered bore in the valve body, thereby developing a seal throughout the length of the bore designated by bracket l2. In the particular structure illustrated the spring fingers 10 are on opposite sides and spaced outward from the axis of the bore and have one end integral with the plug and the other end extending toward the small end of the bore 5 and the axial force is in the direction to move the plug 3 relative to the body 2 toward the small end of the bore. The cam action between the surfaces 7 and 11 makes the seal independent of manufacturing tolerances. The seal is also independent of the angular position of the plug.
The valve is adapted to injection molding from one of the inert plastics such as polyethylene. The cost is lower than the cost of washing and sterilizing, so the valve can be used once and thrown away, thereby avoiding all danger of cross contamination between patients.
The axial sealing force between the plug and body is determined by the difference in the as molded diameters of the interengaging cam surfaces 7 and 11. Increasing the difference results in greater deflection of the spring fingers with corresponding greater sealing force.
What is claimed is:
1. A valve having plug and body members each comprising a single piece of molded plastic, said body member having a tapered bore and inlet and outlet ways leading to said bore, said plug member being rotatable in and complementary to said bore and having a way brought into and out of register with said inlet and outlet ways by relative rotation of said members, means having interengaging cam surfaces on said members of annular configuration of different as molded diameters coaxial with said bore for exerting an axial force moving the plug member axially relative to the body toward the small end of said bore, one of said cam surfaces having an angular extent less than and being on an axially extending spring finger, said finger being supported only at one end by having said one end integral with and cantilevered to one of the members, said one of said cam surfaces being on the unsupported end of the finger, said one end of the finger being axially spaced from said one of said cam surfaces, and the other cam surface being on the other member and deflecting said finger by reason of the difference in the as molded diameters of said interengaging cam surfaces.
2. The valve of claim 1 in which said one member is the plug member.
3. The valve of claim 2 in which said spring finger extends toward the small end of the bore.
4. The valve of claim 3 in which there are a plurality of said fingers, each with one of said cam surfaces on its unsupported end, said fingers and their cam surfaces being angularly spaced from each other, each said finger being spaced radially outward from the axis of the bore and extending from the plug member toward the small end of the bore and in which an axially extending slot in the plug member separates each said finger and its cam surface from the adjacent said finger and its cam surface.
|Cited Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|Mar 1, 1944
|Dec 17, 1946
|Fischer & Porter Co
|Apr 28, 1953
|Apr 29, 1958
|Myers Joseph T
|Light weight plug valve
|Dec 20, 1956
|Sep 30, 1958
|Albert W Kaiser
|Disposable-type three-way valve construction
|Aug 14, 1958
|Dec 12, 1961
|Becton Dickinson Co
|Valve assembly
|May 5, 1961
|May 25, 1965
|Pharmaseal Lab
|Disposable valve
|May 6, 1966
|Dec 16, 1969
|Owens Illinois Inc
|Aug 28, 1969
|Oct 12, 1971
|Telefunken Patent
|Gastight joint
|Jun 8, 1970
|Jul 25, 1972
|Saul Leibinsohn
|Stop cock
|Citing Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|Nov 27, 1973
|Jun 17, 1975
|Fields Robert E
|Jun 10, 1974
|Jan 18, 1977
|International Paper Company
|Aug 11, 1976
|Apr 3, 1979
|Baxter Travenol Laboratories, Inc.
|Adjustable valve
|Aug 29, 1978
|Jun 17, 1980
|Cobe Laboratories, Inc.
|Fluid valve
|Jun 13, 1980
|Jul 7, 1981
|Cavileer Watson V
|Irrigation valve
|Jun 27, 1980
|Feb 9, 1982
|Tronomed International, Inc.
|Disposable valve
|Dec 9, 1985
|May 26, 1987
|Rao Medical Devices, Inc.
|Liquid flow metering device
|Apr 6, 1987
|Mar 7, 1989
|Rivero Olmedo Jose M
|Meter boxes and mountings therefor
|Nov 16, 1988
|Jul 11, 1989
|Dana Corporation
|Self-venting spool valve assembly
|Mar 8, 1988
|Mar 20, 1990
|E. R. Squibb And Sons, Inc.
|Tap for drainage bag
|Feb 2, 1989
|Apr 9, 1991
|Aslanian Jerry L
|Flow control device for administration of intravenous fluids
|Jul 10, 1992
|Sep 7, 1993
|Inlet Medical, Inc.
|Irrigation/aspiration valve and probe for laparoscopy
|May 19, 1993
|Nov 15, 1994
|Inlet Medical
|Irrigation/aspiration valve and probe for laparoscopy
|Apr 21, 1994
|Aug 22, 1995
|Sherwood Medical Company
|Stop-cock valve
|Oct 4, 1996
|Nov 10, 1998
|Becton Dickinson Infusion Therapy Ab
|Nov 13, 1997
|Dec 15, 1998
|Trw Inc.
|Rotary valve
|Mar 5, 1998
|Jan 11, 2000
|Richard Wolf Gmbh
|Disassemblable cock
|Mar 3, 2000
|Feb 19, 2002
|Chemical Engineering Corporation
|Bypass valve for water treatment system
|Sep 12, 2001
|Jun 10, 2003
|Entergris, Inc.
|Three-way plastic valve
|Dec 6, 1997
|Sep 9, 1998
|Richard Wolf GmbH
|Demountable cock
|Apr 17, 1995
|Jul 10, 2002
|Sherwood Services AG
|Stop-cock valve
|Feb 10, 2015
|Aug 27, 2015
|Olympus Winter & Ibe Gmbh
|Shut-off cock
|U.S. Classification
|251/181, 251/904, 251/309, 251/182, 137/625.47
|International Classification
|Cooperative Classification
|European Classification


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
June 25, 2015
JOZEF GAJEWSKI, WIESLAWA GAJEWSKI, and ROBERT R. GAJEWSKI, Plaintiffs,v.OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; CODILIS AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.; and NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendants.
JOHN W. DARRAH, District Judge.
Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, have brought this action, alleging one federal claim for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et. seq., and fourteen state claims. Defendants, separately, move to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2) or, in the alternative, move to stay the Complaint, pending resolution of the foreclosure case against Plaintiffs.
The following facts are taken from the Complaint and its exhibits and assumed to be true for purposes of the Motions. In April 2008, Plaintiff Jozef Gajewski obtained a loan and executed a promissory note for $388, 000.00. As security for the loan, Jozef and his wife, Plaintiff Wieslawa Gajewski, granted a mortgage on their property located at 6 Hickory Lane, Hawthorne Woods, Illinois, 60047 ("the Property"). (Compl. Exh. 5). Their son, Plaintiff Robert Gajewski, is not a party to the loan, the promissory note, or the mortgage. (Compl. Exhs. 4-5.)
In August 2009, the loan was assigned to a new party, Cenlar Loan Administration & Reporting ("Cenlar"). (Compl. ¶¶ 62, 72.) Plaintiffs contend that Jozef and Wieslawa paid the mortgage payment for August 2009, but Cenlar did not credit them for the payment. ( Id. ¶¶ 77, 83; Exh. 12.) In November 2009, the loan was assigned to Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC ("Ocwen"). The August 2009 mortgage payment was still disputed at that time.
Ocwen first initiated a foreclosure proceeding on March 3, 2010. ( Id. ¶ 129.) Ocwen and Jozef and Wieslawa then agreed to modify the loan, effective May 2010. ( Id. ¶ 278; Exh. 40.) However, Jozef and Wieslawa repeatedly made monthly payments that differed from Ocwen's monthly account statements. ( Id. ¶¶ 189-259.) In March 2011, due to disputes regarding their account status, Jozef and Wieslawa ceased making payments to Ocwen. ( Id. ¶ 261.) Ocwen continued sending notices of default and required Plaintiffs to list the Property for "short sale" on April 4, 2011. ( Id. ¶¶ 264, 267, 269.)
Beginning on August 5, 2011, Ocwen retained Defendant, the law firm of Codilis and Associates, P.C. ("Codilis"), to assist with the collection attempts. Another foreclosure action was initiated by Ocwen through Codilis on January 13, 2012. That action was dismissed by Codilis on December 7, 2012, after Jozef and Wieslawa submitted a loan modification application. (Compl. ¶¶ 346, 348.)
On January 22, 2013, Ocwen and Codilis filed a foreclosure complaint against Jozef and Wieslawa in state court in Lake County, Illinois, Case No. 2013-CH-273. ( Id. ¶ 361.) That action is still pending. On May 16, 2013, Ocwen assigned rights to the loan to Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC ("Nationstar"). (Compl. ¶¶ 402, 467, 486.) Nationstar has substituted into the pending foreclosure action for Ocwen. (Compl. ¶ 470.) On December 4, 2014, Jozef moved for leave to file amended counterclaims against Nationstar in the foreclosure action; that motion is still pending.
On November 17, 2014, Jozef and Wieslawa recorded a quit claim deed, transferring the property to themselves and Robert in joint tenancy. (Compl. Exh. 0.)
On November 18, 2014, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit. The Complaint consists of 105 pages, 633 paragraphs, and 211 exhibits. Plaintiffs' claims relate to the servicing and debt collection of their loan and mortgage. Defendants contend, among other things, that Plaintiffs' sole federal claim for violation of the FDCPA is untimely and that the Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims. Defendants further contend that Robert lacks standing in this lawsuit.
12(b)(1) Motion
A Rule 12(b)(1) motion challenges standing and ripeness. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Under Article III § 2 of the United States Constitution, federal courts are limited to hearing "cases" and "controversies." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984). This case-or-controversy limitation requires "a claim that is ripe and a plaintiff who has standing." Ind. Right to Life, Inc. v. Shepard, 507 F.3d 545, 549 (7th Cir. 2007). These concepts are related but distinct: "Whereas ripeness is concerned with when an action may be brought, standing focuses on who may bring a ripe action." Id. (quoting Pic-A-State Pa. v. Reno, 76 F.3d 1294, 1298 n. 1 (3rd Cir. 1996) (emphasis in original)). The plaintiff bears the burden of alleging facts sufficient to establish standing and ripeness. See, e.g., Scanlan v. Eisenberg, 669 F.3d 838, 841-42 (7th Cir. 2012). The court may look beyond the complaint's allegations and consider whatever evidence has been submitted on these issues. Ezekiel v. Michel, 66 F.3d 894, 897 (7th Cir. 1995).
12(b)(6) Motion
Rule 12(b)(6) permits a defendant to move to dismiss a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A complaint must allege enough facts to support a claim that is "plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Facial plausibility exists when the court can "draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). All well-pleaded allegations are presumed to be true, and all inferences are read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Lavalais v. Village of Melrose Park, 734 F.3d 629, 632 (7th Cir. 2013). This presumption is not extended to "legal conclusions, or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements." Alam v. Miller Brewing Co., 709 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009)). The complaint must provide a defendant "with fair notice' of the claim and its basis." Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) and Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
The pleadings of pro se litigants are not held to the same stringent standards as pleadings drafted by formally trained lawyers; instead, they must be liberally construed. See Kyle v. Patterson, 196 F.3d 695, 697 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing Wilson v. Civil Town of Clayton, Ind., 839 F.2d 375, 378 (7th Cir. 1988)). Under this standard, a pro se complaint "may only be dismissed if it is beyond doubt that there is no set of facts under which the plaintiff could obtain relief." Wilson, 839 F.2d at 378. Despite the deferential standard for pro se litigants, the pleadings still must comply with the procedural rules governing them, and the complaint still must be "otherwise understandable." Hudson v. McHugh, 148 F.3d 859, 864 (7th Cir. 1998); see also Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001).[1]
A complaint can also fail to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) "[i]f the allegations of the complaint show that relief is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.'" Limestone Dev. Corp. v. Village of Lemont, Ill., 520 F.3d 797, 802 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007)). A statute of limitations defense "may be raised in a motion to dismiss if the allegations of the complaint itself set forth everything necessary to satisfy the affirmative defense.'" Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 579 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Lewis, 411 F.3d 838, 842 (7th Cir. 2005)). While a complaint is not required to anticipate affirmative defenses and address them, "dismissal is appropriate when the plaintiff pleads himself out of court by alleging facts sufficient to establish the complaint's tardiness." Cancer Found., Inc. v. Cerberus Capital Mgmt., LP, 559 F.3d 671, 674-75 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Hollander v. Brown, 457 F.3d 688, 691 n. 1 (7th Cir. 2006)).
Plaintiffs' FDCPA Claim
The FDCPA provides that any claims to enforce liability must be brought "within one year from the date on which the violation occurs." 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' sole federal claim is barred by the FDCPA's one-year statute of limitations. They point out that, by the Complaint's allegations, the foreclosure action was initiated in
Indeed, although Plaintiffs' Complaint is a rambling, 633-paragraph-long document that recounts in great detail the history among the parties, it is also replete with legal conclusions and legal terms of art, which also suggests input by an attorney.
It is unlikely, to say the least, that these filings were composed by someone without an education in the law. If assistance was afforded by someone other than a licensed attorney, there would appear to be an issue of the unauthorized practice of law. January 2013, which was more than one year before Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on November 18, 2014.
Although the Seventh Circuit has not yet addressed the issue directly, two other circuit courts have held that the statute of limitations begins to run when the alleged wrongful litigation begins. See Naas v. Stolman, 130 F.3d 892, 893 (9th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Riddle, 305 F.3d 1107, 1113 (10th Cir. 2002). Likewise, several district courts in this circuit have held that the clock for FDCPA claims starts with the filing of the allegedly wrongful lawsuit. See, e.g., Padilla v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC, No. 14 C 7650, 2015 WL 513277, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 5, 2015); Mako v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC, No. 14 cv 9600, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6829, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2015); Hammer v. Residential Credit Solutions, Inc., No 13 cv 6397, 2014 WL 4477948 at *10 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 13, 2014); Lockhart v. HSBC Fin. Corp., No. 13 cv 9323, 2014 WL 3811002 at *9 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 1, 2014); Hill v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 946 F.Supp.2d 817, 825 (N.D. Ill. May 24, 2013).
As reflected in Count XIV, Plaintiffs enumerate a laundry list of ways that Defendants allegedly violated the FDCPA with respect to their loan (the "debt" at issue, for purposes of the FDCPA). Defendants allegedly violated the FDCPA when they used unfair and deceptive means to collect on the loan, misrepresented the amount and legal status of the loan, communicated to credit rating agencies false information about the loan, and failed to properly investigate and validate the loan. Plaintiffs do not specify which communications or actions of Defendants violate the various provisions of the FDCPA. Plaintiffs' factual allegations about Defendants' misdeeds culminate with the filing of the foreclosure action in January 2013.[2]
The Court agrees with the district courts in this circuit and the other circuit courts that have held the statute of limitations for a FDCPA claim starts with the filing of the allegedly unlawful litigation. Contrary to Plaintiffs' argument, Defendants "continuously litigating" the foreclosure did not toll the statute of limitations for the FDCPA injury. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that an April 2, 2014 motion by Codilis to substitute Nationstar as a party plaintiff violated the FDCPA. Even if this motion could be interpreted as a violation of the FDCPA - although a fair reading of the allegations about this motion does not support such a violation - this motion is part of the foreclosure litigation and does not restart the clock on the limitations period. The Seventh Circuit has held that a statute of limitations begins to run upon injury "and is not tolled by subsequent injuries." Limestone, 520 F.3d at 801. Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiffs' FDCPA claim is based on the January 2013 foreclosure action, it is time-barred.[3]
Furthermore, to the extent that Plaintiffs' FDCPA claim arises from other communications with Defendants that predate November 18, 2013 (one year before the filing of the lawsuit), those communications also are time-barred. Ocwen points out that the last communication from Ocwen to Plaintiffs that is referred to in the Complaint is a June 4, 2013 letter. (Compl. ¶ 416.) Even if this letter, which informed Jozef that he was responsible for the loan payments and that the servicing for the loan had been transferred to Nationstar, could be construed as a violation of Section 1692g of the FDCPA, it also falls outside of the limitation period. Likewise, Nationstar's purportedly insufficient response to a debt validation letter, which was sent on July 16, 2013, also falls outside of the statute of limitations. (Compl. Exh. 179.)
Plaintiffs respond that they have attached to the Complaint, as Exhibit 211, a letter from Ocwen to Robert that is dated September 24, 2014.[4] When evaluating correspondence regarding the status and collection of a debt, the correspondence should be viewed through the eyes of the "unsophisticated consumer." Wahl v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 556 F.3d 643, 645 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). If a statement would not mislead the unsophisticated consumer who has basic knowledge of the financial world and can make basic inferences and draw logical conclusions, then it does not violate the FDCPA, "even if it is false in some technical sense." Id. at 645-46; see also Veach v. Sheeks, 316 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2003) and Pettit v. Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc., 211 F.3d 1057 (7th Cir. 2000).
Ocwen's September 24, 2014 letter does not plausibly suggest a violation of the FDCPA, even under the most liberal construction. Rather, the letter reflects that Robert (who is not a party to the loan or the mortgage) expressed dissatisfaction with customer service from Ocwen. In the letter, Ocwen apologizes for Robert's dissatisfaction, recounts a history of the loan, asks for check information to research the August 2009 payment, and repeats that servicing for the loan has been transferred to Nationstar. By their own allegations, Plaintiffs knew that Nationstar was servicing the loan by the date of this letter. Thus, even though this letter occurred within the statute of limitations, it does not plausibly state a claim against Ocwen under the FDCPA.
Plaintiff Robert Gajewski
Defendants further contend that Robert does not have standing to assert claims against them. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show:
(1) it has suffered an "injury in fact" that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
Wisconsin Right to Life State PAC v. Barland, 664 F.3d 139, 146-47 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000)). Injury in fact is more than an injury to a cognizable interest - it requires that the party seeking relief be itself among the injured. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 563 (1992).
According to the Complaint, Robert recorded a quitclaim deed conveying the property to himself and his parents as joint tenants on November 17, 2014, one day prior to the filing of this Complaint. (Compl. Exh. 0.) Defendants contend Robert did not suffer injuries traceable to the alleged unfair debt collection practices and related state law claims.
Robert has no legal interest in the foreclosure proceedings because he is not a party to the mortgage. Plaintiffs do not allege Codilis knew of his existence prior to the foreclosure suit or that the Defendants knew Robert was an occupant of the Property. Additionally, while Robert aided his parents in their communication with Defendants, no allegation is made that Defendants attempted to collect the debt from Robert. Rather, Robert's only connection is the purported quit claim deed, which was filed one day before the Complaint and subsequent to all the relevant events alleged in the Complaint.
Plaintiffs have not sufficiently established that Robert suffered an injury in fact that supports his right to be a party to this lawsuit. Robert is consequently dismissed, with prejudice, as a party to the FDCPA claim.
Supplemental Jurisdiction
Plaintiffs' remaining claims are state-law claims. "[I]t is the well-established law of this circuit that the usual practice is to dismiss without prejudice state supplemental claims whenever all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial." Kolbe & Kolbe Health & Welfare Benefit Plan v. Medical College of Wisconsin, Inc., 657 F.3d 496, 505 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193 F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir.1999)). Accordingly, as Plaintiffs' only federal claim has been dismissed, the Court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
For the reasons discussed above, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss [14, 18, 37] are granted. Since it is clear that future amendments to Plaintiffs' FDCPA claim would be futile, dismissal is with prejudice.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Check in from 15h / Check out prior to 11h
Sleep Inn & Suites Dublin Virginia: Find photos, reviews, information, amenities and compare prices for 2 stars hotels in Dublin, United States.
Boasting an indoor pool, a Jacuzzi and free Wi-Fi, Sleep Inn & Suites Dublin Virginia is located in Dublin and offers modern accommodation. It also features an express check-in and check-out feature, a 24-hour reception and meeting rooms.
Hotel description
Luggage storage and a laundry service are just some of the convenient services at Sleep Inn. A fitness centre is available to guests wanting to keep up their exercise regimes while travelling. Conference rooms, a lift and a business centre are also provided.
All modern rooms at the hotel are comfortable and include wireless internet access.
Hotel features
Air Conditioned, Vending Machines
Business Center, Elevator / Lift, 24 Hour Reception, Conference Room(s), Meeting Rooms, Laundry service, Photocopier, Luggage Storage, Express Check-In/Check-Out
Fitness Room/Gym, Swimming pool, Jacuzzi, Pool Indoor
Internet Connection (wireless)
Availability and Prices
Booking Site
Room Type
Per room
Per night
Per night
Users who viewed Sleep Inn & Suites Dublin Virginia also viewed these 2 stars Dublin hotels:
Holiday Inn Express Dublin
4428 Cleburne Blvd, Dublin
4428 Cleburne Blvd, Dublin
Comfort Inn Dublin Virginia
4424 Cleburne Blvd. (I-81 at SR 100), Dublin
4424 Cleburne Blvd. (I-81 at SR 100), Dublin
Dublin Super 8 Motel
4600 Cleburne Boulevard, Dublin
4600 Cleburne Boulevard, Dublin
Search hotels
based on
533 reviews
Nearest hotels
- Dublin Super 8 Motel
3.7 km
- Comfort Inn Dublin Virginia
3.9 km
- Hampton Inn Dublin
4 km


text:
THIS IS A DIRECTORY PAGE. Britannica does not currently have an article on this topic.
Learn about this topic in these articles:
role in Egypt
The burials of King Psusennes I (ruled c. 1045– c. 997 bc) and his successor, Amenemope (ruled c. 998– c. 989 bc), were discovered at Tanis, but little is known of their reigns. This was a period when statuary was usurped and the material of earlier periods was reused. At Karnak, Pinudjem I, who decorated the facade of the Khons temple, usurped a colossal...


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
decided: October 4, 1972.
HAMBYv.STOE ET AL., APPELLANTS
Appeal from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Sept. T., 1971, No. 1656, in case of Rodney R. Hamby v. Elmer E. Stoe, Doris Stoe, and Central Penn Air Service, Inc.
Jerome T. Foerster, with him Smith, Fox, Roberts, Foerster & Finkelstein, for appellants.
John G. Williams, with him Shumaker, Williams & Placey, for appellee.
Jones, C. J., Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Justice O'Brien.
[ 448 Pa. Page 484]
Appellee, alleging that he was a shareholder of appellant corporation, filed an action of mandamus against the corporation and Elmer E. Stoe and Doris Stoe, the individual appellants, as president and secretary-treasurer, respectively, of the corporation. In his complaint, appellee alleged that he, as a shareholder and officer of the corporation, had been denied the right to examine and inspect the books and records of the corporation, and sought an order permitting inspection by him and his agents of the books and records specified in the complaint. Appellants filed preliminary objections in the nature of a motion to strike, a motion for a more specific pleading, and a demurrer. These preliminary objections were never formally disposed of by the court below, and no answer to the complaint was filed. The court below nevertheless, after giving notice to the parties, and after a discussion and argument in chambers, granted appellee's motion for summary judgment. The appeal to this court followed.
Thereafter, appellants filed a petition for supersedeas and appellee filed a motion to quash the appeal. We ordered the motion to quash to be argued at the
[ 448 Pa. Page 485]
time of the argument on the merits and granted the petition for supersedeas in order that the status quo might be maintained pending our disposition of the appeal.
Summary judgment was granted by the court below under the authority of Rule 1098, Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure dealing with Action of Mandamus. That rule provides: "At any time after the filing of the complaint, the court may enter judgment if the right of the plaintiff thereto is clear, but the judgment may be opened upon cause shown. Judgment shall not be entered without prior notice to all parties unless the exigency of the case is such as to require action before notice, in which event notice shall be given as soon as possible." (Emphasis supplied.)
In the instant case, the latter sentence of the rule concerning notice need not concern us, because, as here-inabove indicated, the parties were indeed given notice and an opportunity to present oral arguments in chambers.
We are, however, concerned with the provision of the rule allowing the opening of the judgment upon cause shown. Appellee contends that the summary judgment is not appealable, basing his contention on the provision of Rule 1098 allowing the opening of such summary judgments. He argues that the next step procedurally would be a petition in the court below to open the judgment just as though the judgment had been entered by default or by confession. Another fair analogy which could be drawn would be the situation where a compulsory non-suit is entered. There, the party against whom such a judgment has been entered is required to file a motion to take off the non-suit and may appeal only after the overruling of such a motion.
We are in agreement with appellee's position that the appeal is premature. As aptly stated by appellee
[ 448 Pa. Page 486]
in his brief: "If the Appellants were of the opinion that the Summary Judgment was wrongfully entered, they could have petitioned the lower Court to open that Judgment and had their case heard on its merits, requested evidentiary hearings, questioned the discretion of the judge entering the Summary Judgment, or interposed such other defenses as they deemed necessary. On the contrary, Appellants would ask that this Court determine all of these matters which should have properly been brought before the lower Court in the proceedings available to Appellants."
Therefore, while it was proper, procedurally, under the rule for the court below to enter a summary judgment, even without a determination of the preliminary objections or the filing of an answer, appellants were required under the rule to proceed by a petition for opening before appealing to this court. To rule otherwise would be, in effect, to strike from the rule the language permitting the opening of the judgment upon cause shown.
We conclude that the appeal must be quashed without prejudice to appellants' right to proceed in the court below in accordance with the rule.
Appeal quashed and case remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Appeal quashed and case remanded.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Remarks at Jersey City, New Jersey [1]
Ladies and gentlemen of the State of New-Jersey, I shall only thank you briefly for this very kind and cordial reception---not as given to me individually, but as to the representative of the chief magistracy of this great nation. I cannot make any speech now toPage 234 you, as I shall be met frequently to-day in the same manner as you have received me here, and, therefore, have not the strength to address you at length. I am here before you care-worn, for little else than to greet you, and to say farewell. You have done me the very high honor to present your reception of me through your own great man---a man with whom it is an honor to be associated anywhere---a man with whom no State could be poor. [Applause, long continued.] His remarks of welcome, though brief, deserve an hour's well-considered reply; but time, and the obligations before me, render it necessary for me to close my remarks---allow me to bid you a kind and grateful farewell.
Mr. Lincoln's remarks were received with demonstrations of applause, and the waving of handkerchiefs.
Loud calls were then made for Vice-President Hamlin; but it was announced that he was not present, and would be detained in New-York till to-morrow.
Then followed a rush to shake hands with Mr. Lincoln, and in the rush and crush the policemen and reporters were nearly annihilated. Loud cries were kept up for ``Lincoln, Lincoln,'' and to quiet the crowd Mr. Lincoln once more came to the front of the platform and said:
There appears to be a desire to see more of me, and I can only say that from my position, especially when I look around the gallery (bowing to the ladies), I feel that I have decidedly the best of the bargain, and in this matter I am for no compromises here. [Applause and much laughter.]


text:
SALAD KING: "HOT HOT HOT!" SALAD KING Tip by daffodil
SALAD KING, Toronto: 6 reviews and 2 photos
This is a place where you can order your dish by spicyness. They have the chili pepper scale going from 0 to 20. Even if you really like spicy food, you should stick with a 5 to start. It is REALLY HOT! I once knew this crazy guy that would get 15!!! For anyone that has been there I wonder if you know anyone that had gone higher. I got a 3 and that was pleasantly hot, but by the end I was sweating. Prices are good and portions are fair. Atmosphere is nothing to write home about.
Address: 335 Yonge Street at Gould
Price Comparison: least expensive
Directions: Downtown - Dundas/Yonge Street Area
Phone: 416-971-7041
Price: less than US$10
Rating: 4
Theme: Pan-Asian and Pacific Rim
Website: http://www.saladking.com/
More Restaurants in Toronto (22)
More Reviews (21)
Hotels (1)Just NOT nice!
Transportation (2)See All GO Transit
Things to Do (9)See All Niagara Falls
Warnings and Dangers (2)See All Winter, oh winter!
daffodil's Related Pages
"One small step at a time"
- Member Rank:
- 0 3 5 3 6
- 145 Reviews
- 147 Photos
- Add Friend
- Follow
- Send Message
Have you been to Toronto?Share Your Travels


text:
You are currently using an unsupported web browser.
We support the latest versions of these browsers:
If you have any problems while attempting to download a browser, you should contact your organization's system administrator.
For any questions related to Cvent, feel free to contact our Customer Care team.
Zmar Eco Experience is located in Beja. At Zmar Eco Experience guests feel at home close to Nature. Original and unique in its surrounding landscape, in its ecological awareness, in its wide range of modern and fully equipped facilities, with numerous activities and lodging.
Zmar is a trendy and...
You must be logged in to view contact information for this supplier. Sign up for a free Cvent account today.
Set on the renowned Santa Eulalia Beach in Albufeira, the five-star Grande Real Santa Eulalia Resort & Hotel Spa was the first of Group Hoteis Real's luxury properties. We have 344 rooms and suites and 18 multifunctional rooms for your next event.
The Lisbon Marriott Hotel, is one of the best hotels in Lisbon, providing the warmest introductions to this spectacular area. For large or small events, the hotel offers an impressive 2,000 square meters of space, and advanced technological service.


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
February 15, 2008
PABLO CEDILLO, PLAINTIFF,v.J.C. PENNY CORPORATION, INC., DEFENDANT.
Plaintiff, Pablo Cedillo ("plaintiff"), has sued defendant J.C. Penney ("Penney's") in this diversity case, alleging that Penney's acted negligently in its response to an altercation which led to plaintiff's stabbing outside of Penney's at the North Riverside Mall. Penney's has moved for summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts show that it had no duty to protect plaintiff from a criminal act which occurred outside its premises [dkt 70]. For the reasons stated below, we enter judgment for Penney's.
I. Facts
The facts are taken from Penney's Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts, except where noted.*fn1 On April 23, 2004, plaintiff and his wife, Carmen, and young daughter traveled by car to the North Riverside Mall after dinner.*fn2 After parking their car near the Penney's store entrance, they walked inside the store.*fn3 They then waited in line at a cashier's station together in order to exchange a pair of jeans.*fn4 There were several customers ahead of them in line and they waited for approximately ten minutes before they were assisted.*fn5 While they were waiting in line, Juan Maldonado and Michael Denson entered the Penney's store, using the same entrance that plaintiff and his family had used.*fn6 Plaintiff made eye contact with these men at which time Michael Denson flashed a gang sign at plaintiff and asked him "what the f*** are you looking at?"*fn7 Plaintiff's wife did not hear this remark, but after her husband told her about it, she urged him to ignore Denson and Maldonado. Denson and Maldonado walked away from plaintiff.*fn8
A few minutes later, plaintiff left his wife and daughter so that his wife could return the jeans and walked away to browse the store.*fn9 He testified at his deposition he was about 100 feet away from his wife at this point.*fn10 Almost immediately, he came across Maldonado and Denson. Denson asked plaintiff what his gang affiliation was to which plaintiff responded that he was not involved in a gang.*fn11 Plaintiff admitted in his deposition that this was not a loud exchange (no one was shouting) and that he did not notice anyone watching the encounter.*fn12 Carmen Padilla did not hear this exchange, nor did she see what occurred next.*fn13 Denson then bumped plaintiff in the shoulder and shoved his face with his right hand. Cedillo told him to "take it outside" and walked away from them towards the store entrance/exit.*fn14 He passed his wife on the way out of the store and told her to get the car as there was trouble.*fn15 Carmen Padilla left the store with the couple's daughter and plaintiff followed her out, trailed by Maldonado and Denson.*fn16
Prior to leaving the store, neither plaintiff nor his wife alerted anyone from Penney's that there was a problem, although plaintiff clearly anticipated that there would be one when he asked Maldonado and Denson to "take it outside."*fn17 After leaving the store, plaintiff was punched in the nose by Denson and, after the two exchanged some more blows, stabbed twice.*fn18 Plaintiff's wife screamed for mall security and security guards came to the scene and secured the attackers who were later arrested by North Riverside police.*fn19
II. Analysis
Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, reveals that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.*fn20 To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, then, a party must present evidence that demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.*fn21 A genuine issue of material fact exists when "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."*fn22 The party seeking summary judgment must identify the portions of "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any," which it believes shows an absence of a genuine issue of material fact.*fn23
The evidence presented by the non-movant is to be believed and all justifiable references are to be drawn in his or her favor.*fn24
Two preliminary issues must be resolved prior to reaching the merits of Penney's summary judgment motion. First, Penney's has moved to strike plaintiff's affidavit which was filed as an exhibit to his response to Penney's motion for summary judgment. In this affidavit, plaintiff attempts to add facts which contradict or attempt to supplement his deposition testimony. For example, he stated in his deposition that he was in the store approximately ten to fifteen minutes before the attack occurred outside the store. In his affidavit, however, plaintiff stated that he was in the store about thirty minutes. In his affidavit, plaintiff emphasized how crowded and well-lit the store was and that the shoves by his assailants inside the store (prior to the stabbing outside the store) occurred within close proximity of the service desk. In his deposition, however, he stated he was about one hundred feet from the counter when then shoving began and that he did not think anyone noticed the encounter.
Any conflict between plaintiff's affidavit and his deposition testimony must be resolved in favor of the deposition testimony unless it can be demonstrated that plaintiff was mistaken.*fn25
Plaintiff has made no attempt to demonstrate why his testimony regarding the circumstances of his attack at his deposition differ from his affidavit. "[A]ffidavits, though signed under oath by the affiant, are typically written by the affiant's lawyer, and when offered to contradict the affiant's deposition are so lacking in credibility as to be entitled to zero weight in summary judgment proceedings unless the affiant gives a plausible explanation for the discrepancy."*fn26 As that explanation is lacking here, the court strikes the affidavit.
The second matter is Penney's motion to strike plaintiff's response to its Rule 56.1 statement. Plaintiff originally did not respond at all to the statement in contravention of Local Rule 56.1. The court ordered him to do so. Unfortunately, his response still failed to comply with the Rule because it denied those facts asserted by Penney's without any citation to the record to support the denial. (Plaintiff instead denied those facts and demanded "strict proof thereof" as a response.) The Court ordered him again to comply with the Rule.*fn27 Plaintiff's second response to the Rule 56.1 Statement still does not comply with Rule 56.1 as plaintiff continues to deny several facts, but his citations to the record do not support those denials. However, the Court does not need to strike plaintiff's response in its entirety to resolve this motion.
Penney's argument is that it owed no duty to protect plaintiff from a criminal attack on him which occurred outside its store. Illinois law imposes no duty to protect others from the criminal conduct of a third party unless: (1) a special relationship exists between the parties; and (2) the criminal attack was reasonably foreseeable to Penney's.*fn28 Under Illinois law, a relationship between a business and its invitee is such a special relationship.*fn29 Illinois courts have held that the attack on plaintiff could be reasonably foreseeable to Penney's if Penney's had knowledge of previous similar acts sufficient to put it on notice that such an attack might occur again.*fn30 Although plaintiff asserts that other similar incidents occurred, the undisputed evidence in the case is to the contrary. Penney's witness, Len Hermanson, testified that he did not have any knowledge of prior similar instances. His testimony is corroborated by both police officers who testified that they did not know of any stabbing or physical attacks occurring at the North Riverside mall. Their own calls to the mall were limited to retail thefts and minor disturbances. Plaintiff himself did not know of any such attacks which had occurred in the past.
We turn, therefore, to what occurred in the store. Illinois courts have recognized that a duty can arise if there are sufficient facts to put defendants on notice that an intervening criminal act is likely to occur.*fn31 Could a jury find from the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff that a stabbing attack outside the store was reasonably foreseeable to Penney's based on the altercation which occurred while plaintiff and his attackers were still inside the store premises? The record before us does not support such a finding. The first verbal exchange between plaintiff and his attackers while he was still in line with his wife was quiet enough that she could not hear it. The subsequent shoving encounter took place approximately 85-100 feet away from the closest cashier and, by plaintiff's own admission, was not loud. This encounter also went unobserved by his wife. Neither plaintiff nor his wife told anyone from Penney's about what had occurred, or that they felt threatened by the attackers. Under these circumstances, Illinois courts have ruled that a duty to act to prevent the attack outside of the business premises simply does not exist.*fn32
Plaintiff argues that this case is different from the ones cited above, but is analogous to Shortall v. Hawkeye's Bar & Grill, in which the Illinois appellate court reversed summary judgment entered against a tavern for failing to take actions to prevent a stabbing which occurred outside the tavern.*fn33 In that case, however, genuine issues of material fact existed concerning the issue of forseeability which are conspicuously missing here. For example, in Shortall there was evidence in the record that the bouncer at the tavern was aware that the fight had erupted and took no action. There was also evidence (from the plaintiff) that tavern employees witnessed the altercation when it began inside the tavern. However, plaintiff in this case does not offer any evidence that anyone witnessed what occurred inside the store. In fact, he testified that he did not believe that anyone witnessed the altercation; certainly his wife did not.
Plaintiff's last two arguments in opposition to this motion are equally unconvincing. First, plaintiff contends that the facts show that Penney's could be found negligent here because the mall security guards did not intervene fast enough to prevent the attack outside the Penney's once it began. Putting aside that there is virtually no evidence here about the timing or appropriateness of the guards' response (other than the police officers' testimony that they believed the mall guards had the situation under control by the time they arrived), the record is devoid of facts which show that Penney's employed, or had any control over these guards. Second, plaintiff argues that summary judgment should not be entered because there are facts in this record which showed that Penney's did not have its security cameras on during the incidents inside and outside of the store. Plaintiff contends that by installing these cameras, Penney's assumed a duty to him to keep them operational. Even assuming that such a duty was assumed by Penney's, and that having the cameras off proximately caused injury to plaintiff, plaintiff misstates the record. All the police record (upon which plaintiff relies) shows is that "nothing from the incident was captured on videotape from Penney's either inside or outside the store."*fn34 Thus, this record does not support plaintiff's factual assertion that the cameras were not operational but, instead, that the cameras did not capture evidence of the altercation.
Penney's has shown that there are no genuine issues of material fact for the jury to resolve, and that the facts in the record viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff entitle it to a judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court enters judgment in favor of defendant.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text: People who know how to play songs on the iAno (pianist, or whatever it's called now) should post tutorials on youtube so that everyone who's never played the piano can have something to play! I can play Clocks just like the guy who did it the best on youtube. I'm learning 'Apologize', but his tutorial isn't that great. ....but there aren't anymore. So people, post your stuff!