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.
January 22, 2009
MARLENE MCCREEv.SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Presently before the Court are Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 10), and Plaintiff's Cross Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 11). For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion will be granted, and Plaintiff's Motion will be denied.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND*fn1
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("Defendant" or "SEPTA") is a municipal authority of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that provides public transportation services to the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area. SEPTA services are provided through its bus, trolley, subway, and regional railroad systems. On August 16, 2005, at an intersection in South Philadelphia, Marlene McCree ("Plaintiff") attempted to board one of Defendant's buses. (Pl.'s Dep. at 22.) Plaintiff was riding in a motorized scooter as a result of recent foot surgery. (Id. at 8, 23-24, 27-28.) The bus driver therefore deployed a flip-down ramp to the street-level onto which Plaintiff could drive her motorized scooter and board the bus. (Id. at 30, 32; Hickerson Dep. at 8.) Plaintiff proceeded to drive up the ramp, facing forward and "moving slow," when she noticed a "lump" or "hump" in the ramp that she "couldn't get past" to enter the bus. (Pl.'s Dep. at 28, 31-32, 34; see also Pl.'s Interrog. ¶ 6(d) ("There was a lump in the ramp of the SEPTA vehicle.")) The bus driver told her to "go back and come back in" and to "come back in faster" so that the wheels of Plaintiff's motorized scooter could clear the hump. (Pl.'s Dep. at 31-32, 34.) While Plaintiff was backing up the motorized scooter and situated halfway down the ramp, Plaintiff asked the bus driver if she "was okay to go back," and the bus driver answered in the affirmative. (Id. at 33; see also Pl.'s Interrog. ¶ 7(e) ("I asked the driver was I okay to back up[.] He said yes[.]")) Plaintiff's motorized scooter then fell off the side of the ramp, and Plaintiff and the scooter landed on the street.*fn2 (Pl.'s Dep. at 33, 36.) At the time of Plaintiff's fall, the bus was stopped and the ramp was motionless. (Id. at 41-42.) The bus did not move in any way to cause Plaintiff to fall from the ramp. (Id. at 42.) Plaintiff does not know what caused her to fall. (Id. at 33.) The bus driver testified that Plaintiff fell because one of the wheels of Plaintiff's motorized scooter hit the side of the ramp as she was backing up. (Hickerson Dep. at 29.) Plaintiff was injured in the fall. She was taken to the hospital emergency room, treated, and released. (Id. at 37; see also Pl.'s Interrog. ¶ 15(a).)
On April 15, 2007, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. (See Doc. No. 10, Ex. A (Compl.)) In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that:
The negligence of [Defendant] consisted of but was not limited to the following:
a. Failure to properly train . . . employees in the proper means of assisting handicapped individuals in allowing them to enter or exit the vehicle.
b. Failure to properly maintain the vehicle and handicapped equipment.
c. Failure to properly aid [Plaintiff] in entering the vehicle.
d. Allowing [Defendant's] driver to sit on the bus and render no assistance to [Plaintiff] while attempting to enter the vehicle;
e. Failure to use due care. (Compl. ¶ 11.) On November 16, 2007, at the conclusion of Plaintiff's deposition, Plaintiff's counsel handed Defense counsel a copy of a federal regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 37.165 (2002),*fn3 that was promulgated under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (See Doc. No. 10 ¶ 8; Doc. No. 11 ¶ 8.) Plaintiff's counsel told Defense counsel that it was Plaintiff's position that Defendant violated the federal regulation. (Id.) On November 21, 2007, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) (2008). The statute provides, in pertinent part, that a notice of removal may be filed "within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through service of otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable . . . ." (emphasis added). 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Defendant removed the action to this Court asserting that the federal regulation constituted "other paper" under Section 1446(b). (See Doc. Nos. 1, 3.)
On December 12, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand arguing that the removal was untimely. (See Doc. No. 2.) Plaintiff contended that Defendant did not file the notice of removal "within thirty days" after receiving notice of a federal claim, since the Complaint placed Defendant "on notice" seven months earlier of the existence of federal claims under the ADA. (Doc. No. 2 ¶ 11.) Specifically, Plaintiff contended that "Defendant was on notice of the exact nature of Plaintiff's claim in April 2007 [when the Complaint was filed] and should have removed the case at that time" since "it is inconceivable that Defendant did not understand" that Plaintiff's lawsuit involved a disabled person's use of transportation, and "Defendant is presumed [to be] aware of the laws and statutes governing passengers with disabilities, including Federal laws." (Doc. No. 2 ¶ 7.) We denied Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, concluding that the Complaint did not put Defendant on notice of a federal question and finding that "the act of providing Defendant with a copy of the federal regulation, accompanied by an oral representation of an intent to rely upon that regulation, constituted notice of Plaintiff's intent to pursue a federal claim." (Doc. No. 7.)
Defendant filed the instant Motion seeking summary judgment on Plaintiff's negligence and ADA claims. (Doc. No. 10.) Defendant contends that Plaintiff's negligence claim is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. In addition, Defendant contends that Plaintiff's federal claim under Title II of the ADA fails because there is no evidence of intentional discrimination or discriminatory animus. Plaintiff filed a Cross Motion to Amend the Complaint "to more fully plead facts in order to adequately allege a violation of the ADA." (Doc. No. 11 at 7.)
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A genuine issue of material fact exists only when "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating that there are no facts supporting the nonmoving party's legal position. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986). Once the moving party carries this initial burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (explaining that the nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts"). "The nonmoving party . . . 'cannot rely merely upon bare assertions, conclusory allegations or suspicions' to support its claim.'" Townes v. City of Phila., No. 00-0138, 2001 WL 503400, at *2 (E.D. Pa. May 11, 2001) (quoting Fireman's Ins. Co. v. DeFresne, 676 F.2d 965, 969 (3d Cir. 1982)). Rather, the party opposing summary judgment must go beyond the pleadings and present evidence through affidavits, depositions, or admissions on file to show that there is a genuine issue for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. When deciding a motion for summary judgment, we must view facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Siegel Transfer, Inc. v. Carrier Express, Inc., 54 F.3d 1125, 1127 (3d Cir. 1995). However, we must not resolve factual disputes or make credibility determinations.*fn4 Siegel Transfer, 54 F.3d at 1127.
A. Plaintiff's Negligence Claims
Defendant asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's negligence claims based on the Pennsylvania Sovereign Immunity Act, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 8521-8522. Defendant is an agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that is generally entitled to sovereign immunity under the Sovereign Immunity Act. See 74 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 1711(a), 1711(b)(3) (noting that SEPTA "shall exercise the public powers of the Commonwealth as an agency and instrumentality thereof" and "shall continue to enjoy sovereign and official immunity, as provided [by the statutory provisions that comprise and pertain to the Sovereign Immunity Act]"); see also Cooper v. SEPTA, 548 F.3d 296, 307 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing cases in which Pennsylvania state courts have recognized SEPTA to be a Commonwealth agency under the Sovereign Immunity Act); Jones v. SEPTA, 772 A.2d 435, 444 (Pa. 2001) (holding SEPTA immune in a tort case because the case did not fall within an exception to the Sovereign Immunity Act); Feingold v. SEPTA, 517 A.2d 1270, 1276-77 (Pa. 1986) (finding SEPTA to be "an agency of the Commonwealth" against whom "it would be inappropriate to assess punitive damages"). However, sovereign immunity under the Act "is not absolute." Bottoms v. SEPTA, 805 A.2d 47, 48 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002). The Act includes nine exceptions to sovereign immunity. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8522 (listing the nine exceptions). The nine exceptions are as follows: (1) vehicle liability; (2) medical-professional liability; (3) care, custody or control of personal property; (4) Commonwealth real estate highways and sidewalks; (5) potholes and other dangerous conditions on highways; (6) care, custody and control of animals; (7) liquor store sales; (8) National Guard activities; and (9) toxoids and vaccines. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8522(b); Brown v. Blaine, 833 A.2d 1166, 1173 n.15 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003) (listing the nine exceptions). The exceptions "must be strictly construed and narrowly interpreted." Bufford v. Pa. Dep't of Transp., 670 A.2d 751, 753 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996) (citations omitted). Plaintiff specifically relies on the vehicle liability exception to sovereign immunity in bringing her negligence claim against Defendant.*fn5 (See Doc. No. 11 at 16, citing 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8522(b)(1).) The exception for vehicle liability provides that:
[T]he defense of sovereign immunity shall not be raised to claims for damages caused by:
1) Vehicle liability -- The operation of any motor vehicle in the possession or control of a Commonwealth party. As used in this paragraph, "motor vehicle" means any vehicle which is self-propelled and any attachment thereto[.] 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8522(b)(1). The statute does not define "operation" of a motor vehicle.
Defendant contends that "[t]he Pennsylvania Supreme Court and Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court have stated that the term 'operation' as found in § 8522(b)(1) of the vehicle liability exception to sovereign immunity encompasses only those situations where the injury results from either the vehicle moving or from a moving part of the vehicle." (Doc. No. 10 ¶ 30.) Defendant cites a number of cases for this proposition. See Warrick v. Pro Cor Ambulance, Inc., 739 A.2d 127, 128 (Pa. 1999); White v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 718 A.2d 778, 780 (Pa. 1998); Love v. City of Phila., 543 A.2d 531, 533 (Pa. 1988); Mosley v. SEPTA, 842 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003); Miller v. Erie MTA, 618 A.2d 1095, 1097 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1992), appeal denied, 644 A.2d 165 (Pa. 1994); Bottoms, 805 A.2d at 50; Greenleaf v. SEPTA, 698 A.2d 170, 173 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997); Bazemore v. SEPTA, 657 A.2d 1323, 1327 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995); Simpkins, 648 A.2d at 591; Hall v. SEPTA, 596 A.2d 1153, 1156 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1991); see also Lee v. SEPTA, 418 F. Supp. 2d 675, 682 (E.D. Pa. 2005) ("The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has addressed the scope of the motor vehicle exception in several decisions and has consistently held that the exception for the 'operation' of a motor vehicle, including a passenger bus, pertains only to actions taken while the vehicle is in motion and does not refer to the loading and unloading of passengers.").
We agree that the vehicle liability exception applies only when the injury results from the vehicle moving or from a moving part of the vehicle. The case of Love v. City of Philadelphia is instructive. 543 A.2d at 531. In Love, the plaintiff, an elderly woman, fell as she was alighting from the steps of a van owned by the City of Philadelphia. Id. The plaintiff alleged that the City's negligence caused her injuries, and a jury found in the plaintiff's favor. Id. at 532. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court's reversal of the jury's verdict, finding that the facts of the case did not fall under the vehicle liability exception. Id. In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court observed that the vehicle liability exception does not define the term "operation" and it therefore construed the word according to its common usage:
[T]o operate something means to actually put it in motion. Merely preparing to operate a vehicle, or acts taken at the cessation of operating a vehicle are not the same as actually operating that vehicle. Thus, according to the common and approved usage of the word "operation," the van was not in operation at the time of [the plaintiff's] accident. Getting into or alighting from a vehicle are merely acts ancillary to the actual operation of the vehicle.
Id. at 533 (emphasis in original). Courts applying Love have consistently held that "operation" of a vehicle under Section 8522 does not apply when a passenger is merely entering into or alighting from a stationary bus. See, e.g., Bazemore, 657 A.2d at 1323 (passenger's injury sustained from tripping on steps when exiting bus did not satisfy exception for vehicle liability under Section 8522); Rubenstein, 668 A.2d at 283 (bus driver's failure to recognize uneven ground at point of departure, allegedly contributing to the plaintiff's injuries, did not satisfy exception for vehicle liability); Berman v. SEPTA, 698 A.2d 1362, 1364 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997) ("Many acts, such as . . . providing assistance to passengers who need help getting on or off the bus, are all associated with operating a bus. Nonetheless, they are not themselves 'operation[.]' Rather they . . . are acts 'ancillary to the actual operation of the vehicle.'") (emphasis in original) (citations omitted).
The case of Bottoms v. SEPTA is similarly instructive. 805 A.2d at 50. In Bottoms, the plaintiff brought a negligence action against SEPTA alleging that the bus driver failed to lower the steps closer to the ground using the bus's "kneeling" mechanism, causing the plaintiff to fall while alighting from the bus. Id. at 48. The plaintiff argued that the driver's failure to engage the "kneeling" mechanism satisfied the vehicle liability exception. Id. at 51. The trial court disagreed and granted summary judgment in favor of SEPTA. Id. at 48. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, concluding that "[i]t was not a movement of the bus itself that caused [the plaintiff] her injury. . . . The SEPTA bus was standing still, at a curb, discharging passengers; it was not 'in operation' as required for the vehicle liability exception to apply." Id.; see also Regester v. County of Chester, 797 A.2d 898, 903 n.7 (Pa. 2002) (reaffirming Love and noting that failure to provide adequate assistance to an alighting passenger "falls within the general conferral of governmental immunity and outside the vehicle liability exception").
The vehicle liability exception may apply, however, if movement of only a part of the vehicle causes an injury. See Sonnenberg v. Erie MTA, 586 A.2d 1026, 1028 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1991). In Sonnenberg, the plaintiff was alighting from the rear door of a bus when the door suddenly closed, striking her in the back and locking her into a position, causing injury. Id. at 1027. The bus driver heard the plaintiff's cries and released the door. Id. The plaintiff brought a negligence action under the vehicle liability exception. Id. The trial court determined that the vehicle liability exception did not apply because the stationary bus was not "in operation" when the plaintiff was injured, and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Id. The Commonwealth Court reversed, finding that the plaintiff's injuries "are alleged to have been directly caused by a moving part of [the defendant's] bus." Id. at 1028. The court noted that "[t]he movement of parts of a vehicle, or an attachment to a vehicle, is sufficient to constitute 'operation.'" Id.; see also Bottoms, 805 A.2d at 50 (noting that although generally the entire vehicle is moving in order for the vehicle liability exception to apply, "a moving part, such as a bus door, has been found to be 'in operation'").
In this case, Plaintiff was boarding a stationary bus using a motionless wheelchair ramp. (See Pl.'s Dep. at 41, stating that the bus was "stopped" and "in a steady position" and the ramp was "motionless.") As the plaintiffs' alighting from stationary vehicles in Love and Bottoms was ancillary to the operation of the vehicles, Plaintiff's boarding of the stationary bus here with the assistance of a motionless wheelchair ramp is "ancillary to the actual operation of the vehicle." See Love, 543 A.2d at 533; Bottoms, 805 A.2d at 50; see also Bazemore, 657 A.2d at 1323 (passenger's injury sustained from tripping on steps when exiting bus did not satisfy exception for vehicle liability); Berman, 698 A.2d at 1364 (holding that the act of "providing assistance to passengers who need help getting on . . . the bus . . . are not themselves 'operation'" and are instead "ancillary"). Plaintiff contends that these cases are distinguishable since they do not involve "a disabled person who is trying to negotiate a wheelchair lift ramp." (Doc. No. 11 at 16.) This is a distinction without a difference. Regardless of whether Plaintiff fell on a motionless wheelchair ramp or on motionless steps like the passengers in Love, Bottoms, and Bazemore, there is no dispute that the bus was not moving when Plaintiff fell, and that Plaintiff was not injured by any moving parts. Plaintiff asserts that her case is unique because Defendant owed her "the highest degree of care." (See Doc. No. 11 at 17.) Defendant's duty is irrelevant, however, if the underlying negligence action fails to satisfy any of the exceptions to sovereign immunity. Plaintiff further asserts that "the bus and the passenger were both special" since the bus was not "just a regular bus picking up ambulatory passengers." It appears from the evidence in the record that the bus was indeed "just a regular bus" that also picked up ambulatory passengers. (See, e.g., Pl.'s Dep. at 27-28, stating that Plaintiff was boarding a Route C bus; id. at 30, stating that other passengers "already got on" before Plaintiff boarded; Hickerson Dep. at 22, stating that other passengers were "getting off the bus to assist [Plaintiff]"; id. at 7, acknowledging that "all SEPTA buses come handicapped equipped.") In any event, Plaintiff's argument is unavailing since Plaintiff admits that her injury occurred when the bus and wheelchair ramp were motionless.
In an attempt to show some evidence of motion or a moving part, Plaintiff asserts that the bus driver testified that "the kneeler and ramp were actively running at the time of the accident." (See Doc. No. 11 at 18; Hickerson Dep. at 16-18, 27.) Plaintiff misstates the testimony. The bus driver testified to taking several discrete actions involving operation of the kneeler and ramp before Plaintiff boarded the bus:
Q: What's the next step that you take after you go through where the ramp will be positioned?
A: Bringing -- aligning the bus up to where the wheelchair person is, putting the vehicle in neutral, parking brake, hitting the kneeler button first, and then hitting the ramp button. The kneeler is lowering the bus. And then the ramp button is lowering the bus even further, if possible. And then deploying the ramp.
Q: The ramp th[e]n lowers itself onto either the street or the pavement?
A: Yes.
Q: And then what happens after that?
A: Then it's time for the wheelchair person to come on up.
Q: In theory, the person would come up the ramp on the wheelchair?
Q: Where does that leave the person? . . .
A: They are right there facing me by the fare box.
Q: And then what would you do at that particular point in time, in theory?
A: Well, I would get out of the seat and go out and lift the two seats up where they're going to be positioned, and then strap the person in, come back to my seat, and then hit the kneeler button, and then hit the ramp button for it to deploy back inside the bus.
Q: Do you have to help position the person in the wheelchair into the seat before you hit the kneeler button and the ramp button again?
A: Yes, I position them into their little space, and then I strap them in.
Q: Before you raise the bus and bring the ramp up?
A: Yes. (Hickerson Dep. at 16-18.) Thus, the bus driver testified to three basic steps: first, the driver engages the kneeler and the ramp; second, the passenger in the wheelchair ascends the ramp to board the bus, at which point the driver positions the person in the designated seating area and "strap[s] them in"; and third, the driver returns the kneeler and ramp to position. (See id.) Plaintiff's injury occurred during step two, after the kneeler and ramp performed their operations but before Plaintiff entered the bus. The kneeler and ramp were "actively running" only in the sense that the bus driver had lowered the bus and deployed the ramp to a resting, motionless position, not unlike a set of steps. Plaintiff points to the SEPTA Operator's Guide for the proposition that the ramp is within "the operation" cycle when the ramp is deployed. (See Doc. No. 11, Ex. F, at 142.) Regardless of the nomenclature, it is undisputed that the ramp of the stationary bus was not moving any more than the steps of the stationary buses were moving in Love, Bottoms, and Bazemore. The only difference is that the passengers in those cases were using stairs while Plaintiff here was using a ramp. The vehicle liability exception does not apply to these facts. Moreover, the actions of which Plaintiff complains appear to be more associated with the bus driver's actions in assisting or failing to assist Plaintiff than with the physical operation of the bus. See Regester, 797 A.2d at 903. In Regester, the plaintiff telephoned the township's emergency medical services after the decedent suffered a heart attack. Id. at 899. Dispatchers provided the responding paramedics with accurate driving directions, but the paramedics got lost due to their unfamiliarity with the geographic area. Id. at 900. Consequently, the paramedics arrived too late to revive the decedent. Id. The decedent's estate brought a negligence action against the county and township under the vehicle liability exception alleging that the paramedics negligently failed to familiarize themselves with the geographic area. Id. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding, inter alia, that the vehicle liability exception did not apply since the ambulance was not driven in a negligent manner and no causal relationship existed between its physical operation and the plaintiff's injury. Id. at 901. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment with respect to the vehicle liability exception. Id. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court allowed an appeal "on a limited basis to address the application of the vehicle liability exception to governmental immunity." Id. at 902. The Court then affirmed the grant of summary judgment, stating: the Commonwealth Court correctly concluded that the form of negligence alleged by [the plaintiff] does not qualify [under the vehicle liability exception]. To the contrary, such allegations of negligence on the part of [the paramedics] in failing to maintain adequate familiarity with the emergency service area and follow provided directions is more closely associated with the public service involved (ambulance service) than it is with the physical operation of the vehicle as such.
Id. at 904. The court rejected a "general rule to the effect that all negligent decision making of government actors occurring within the course of the operation of a vehicle" falls under the vehicle liability exception. Id. at 903. Such conduct is "more closely associated with the panoply of public functions served by government vehicles than with the physical operation of the vehicle itself." Id. at 904.
Here, Plaintiff alleges negligent decision-making by Defendant's bus driver. Plaintiff asserts that she suffered injuries as a result of the bus driver's decision not to leave his seat or provide Plaintiff with other assistance in boarding the bus. The bus driver's failure to assist Plaintiff "is more closely associated with the public service involved" -- in this case, public transportation -- "than it is with the physical operation of the vehicle as such." Regester,797 A.2d at 904. There is no evidence that the bus was driven or otherwise operated in a negligent manner, and, as in Regester, there is no evidence of a causal relationship between the vehicle's physical operation and Plaintiff's injury. See id. at 901.
We are satisfied that the vehicle liability exception does not apply in this case. We will therefore grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's negligence claims.*fn6
B. Plaintiff's Federal Claim under the ADA
Defendant moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff's ADA claim on two related grounds.
1. Failure to Allege Intentional Discrimination in the Complaint
First, Defendant argues that summary judgment is appropriate on Plaintiff's ADA claim because the Complaint fails to allege intentional discrimination. Plaintiff maintains that she filed her Complaint as a state court action and that "obviously, her Complaint [was] not written to contain any averments concerning the ADA," but that because "[D]efendant has removed [P]laintiff to the federal forum" she should be granted leave to amend the Complaint "in order to conform with the pleading requirements of the ADA." (Doc. No. 11 at 14.) We are presented here with a motion for summary judgment, not a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We must therefore determine whether Plaintiff's ADA claim is ripe for summary adjudication when the parties have litigated and briefed the ADA claim at the summary judgment stage of the case, but when the Complaint does not technically plead such a claim.
The function of a complaint "is to give defendants fair notice of plaintiffs' claims and the grounds on which they rest and to show why the plaintiff is entitled to relief." United States v. City of Phila., 644 F.2d 187, 206 (3d Cir. 1980); see also Hull v. Fleetwood Enter., Inc., No. 06-1669, 2007 WL 917088, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 21, 2007) (citing Continental Collieries v. Shober, 130 F.2d 631, 635 (3d. Cir. 1942) (holding same)); Rueda v. Amerifirst Bank, No. 90-3986, 1991 WL 25565, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 25, 1991) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) (noting same)). During and after trial, "[w]hen an issue not raised by the pleadings is tried by the parties' express or implied consent, it must be treated in all respects as if raised in the pleadings." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b)(2).*fn7 Thus, courts may treat an issue that is tried by consent, "squarely presented and foisting no surprise on any party," as included in a constructively amended complaint "even though no technical amendment was ever made." Nanavati v. Burdette Tomlin Mem. Hosp., 857 F.2d 96, 104 (3d Cir. 1988) (citations omitted); see also Douglas v. Owens, 50 F.3d 1226, 1236 (3d Cir. 1995) (holding amendment permitted under Rule 15(b) if tried by express or implied consent of parties).
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has not addressed the issue of whether Rule 15(b) allows for the constructive amendment of a complaint at the summary judgment stage of a case. District courts within the Third Circuit appear to have split on the issue. Compare McGovern v. City of Jersey City, No. 98-5186, 2008 WL 58820, at *3 n.1 (D.N.J. Jan. 2, 2008) (noting under Rule 15(b) that "the fact that the parties addressed both sets of allegations on summary judgment evidences the parties' implied consent to adjudicate the allegations as if they had been specifically alleged in the . . . Complaint") and Parker v. Phila. Newspapers, Inc., 322 F. Supp. 2d 624, 629 (E.D. Pa. 2004) ("There is no reason why the logic of Rule 15(b) should not apply with equal force to issues raised in the summary judgment context.") with Vosgerichian v. Commodore Int'l, Ltd., No. 92-4867, 1998 WL 966026, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 1998), aff'd, 191 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Albanese v. Bergen County, 991 F. Supp. 410, 421 (D.N.J. 1997) ("Rule 15(b) . . . is limited to situations where the issue has been tried. [Where] no trial has occurred, [the plaintiff] can find no solace in Rule 15(b)."); United States v. 2001 Honda Accord, 245 F. Supp. 2d 602, 612 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (same); Wilson v. Dep't of Corr. of Del., No. 99-0614, 2001 WL 845652, at *3 (D. Del. Jul. 24, 2001) (same).
The Circuit Courts are also split on the issue, though the majority of Circuit Courts have concluded that Rule 15(b) applies at the summary judgment stage. Compare Cruz v. Coach Stores, Inc., 202 F.3d 560, 569 (2d Cir. 2000) (applying Rule 15(b) at the summary judgment stage); Canion v. Randall & Blake, 817 F.2d 1188, 1193 (5th Cir. 1987) (same); Smith v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 953 F.2d 1025, 1030 (6th Cir. 1992) (same); Walton v. Jennings Cmty. Hosp. Inc., 875 F.2d 1317, 1320 n.3 (7th Cir. 1989) (same); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 605 F.2d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1979) (same); Suiter v. Mitchell Motor Coach Sales, Inc., 151 F.3d 1275, 1279-80 (10th Cir. 1998) (applying Rule 15(b) to a defense raised in a motion for summary judgment) and Kulkarni v. Alexander, 662 F.2d 758, 762 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (noting that Rule 15(b)'s "general principle" has been applied at summary judgment stage), with Crawford v. Gould, 56 F.3d 1162, 1168-69 (9th Cir. 1995) ("The present case did not go to trial; it was decided on motions for summary judgment. Therefore, the situation which Rule 15(b) addresses simply did not arise in the present case."); Blue Cross Blue Shield v. Weitz, 913 F.2d 1544, 1550 (11th Cir. 1990) (Rule 15(b) is "inapposite" when a case is decided on summary judgment); Harris v. Dep't of Veterans' Affairs, 126 F.3d 339, 344 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that Rule 15(b) does not apply when case does not reach trial); and Indep. Petroleum Ass'n. of Am. v. Babbitt, 235 F.3d 588, 596 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ("It is an open question whether the Federal Rules permit parties to impliedly consent to 'try' issues not raised in their pleadings through summary judgment motions.").
We are persuaded that under the circumstances here, Rule 15(b) provides for constructive amendment of the Complaint to include Plaintiff's ADA claim since the parties were on notice of the claim for over a year, litigated the claim after Plaintiff asserted it, and addressed the merits of the claim in their summary judgment briefing.*fn8 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (2008) (stating that rules of procedure "should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"); Whitaker v. T.J. Snow Co., 151 F.3d 661, 663 (7th Cir. 1998) ("Because both parties squarely addressed the strict liability theory in their summary judgment briefs, the complaint was constructively amended to include that claim."); Miles Hickman v. David Powers Homes, Inc., No. 07-0754, 2008 WL 5188726, at *12 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 9, 2008) (citation omitted) ("[Rule 15(b)] applies at the summary judgment stage, as well as at trial."); Minix v. Canarecci, No. 05-0144, 2007 WL 1970936, at *4 (N.D. Ind. July 3, 2007) (citation omitted) ("One way parties impliedly agree to an issue not included in the complaint is by addressing the issue at summary judgment."); Esmont v. City of New York, 371 F. Supp. 2d 202, 217 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (citations omitted) ("When both parties squarely address a claim in their summary judgment briefs, it may be argued that the complaint was constructively amended pursuant to [Rule]15(b)."); In re Lott, 363 B.R. 835, 837 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2006) (noting that although Rule 15(b) "is not specifically made applicable to the summary judgment phase of litigation, it has been held when 'both parties squarely address a claim in their summary judgment briefs, . . . the complaint was constructively amended"); see also Handzlik v. United States, 93 Fed. App'x 15, 17 (5th Cir. 2004)(unpublished opinion) (noting same). It was Plaintiff's voluntary act of pursuing the ADA claim that triggered Defendant's removal and this Court's federal question jurisdiction. Over a year ago, Plaintiff's counsel handed Defense counsel a copy of a federal regulation promulgated under the ADA and told Defense counsel that Plaintiff intended to rely on the federal regulation in pursuing her case. The parties do not dispute these facts. (See Doc. No. 10 ¶ 8; Doc. No. 11 ¶ 8.) Plaintiff's counsel even questioned Defendant's bus driver during a deposition about his knowledge of "federal codes" as they relate to wheelchair ramps. (Hickerson Dep. at 24.) After Defendant had removed the case to this Court, Plaintiff moved to remand on grounds that the ADA claim was so obvious in the Complaint that Defendant was "on notice" of it seven months earlier, making the removal untimely. (Doc. No. 2 ¶ 7.) The parties addressed Plaintiff's ADA claim again in their summary judgment briefing, in which Plaintiff argues that evidence of discriminatory intent "is of no consequence" to the validity of the federal claim. (Doc. No. 11 at 15.) Thus, this is not a case where either party had doubts about the existence of a federal claim. See Schultz v. Cally, 528 F.2d 470, 474-75 (3d Cir. 1975) (refusing to apply Rule 15(b) to constructively amend pleadings where doubt existed as to whether defendants would have agreed to the existence of federal question jurisdiction). Moreover, this is not a case where the plaintiff is seeking to amend the Complaint to add claims that the parties did not consent to litigating. Under the facts presented, we find that Plaintiff's ADA claim is ripe for summary adjudication. We join the vast majority of the Circuit Courts of Appeals andseveral courts from this District in applying Rule 15(b) at the summary judgment stage of the case. See, e.g., Cruz, 202 F.3d at 569; Canion, 817 F.2d at 1193; Smith, 953 F.2d at 1030; Walton, 875 F.2d at 1320 n.3; Jackson, 605 F.2d at 1129; Suiter, 151 F.3d at 1279-80; Kulkarni, 662 F.2d at 762; McGovern, 2008 WL 58820, at *3 n.1; Parker, 322 F. Supp. 2d at 629. Plaintiff's request for leave to amend the Complaint will be denied as moot.
2. Sufficiency of the Evidence of Intentional Discrimination
Defendant asserts that summary judgment is appropriate on Plaintiff's ADA claim since claims for compensatory damages under Title II of the ADA require a showing of intentional discrimination, and there is no such evidence in the record. Under Title II, "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity."*fn9 42 U.S.C. § 12132. To prevail on a claim for a violation of Title II of the ADA, Plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) she was either excluded from or otherwise denied the benefits of some public entity's services, programs or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (3) such exclusion, denial of benefits or discrimination was by reason of the plaintiff's disability. See Turner v. Hershey Chocolate U.S., 440 F.3d 604, 611 (3d Cir. 2006) (reciting elements); Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E., 172 F.3d 238, 253 (3d Cir. 1999) (same); Melton v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 391 F.3d 669, 671-72 (5th Cir. 2004) (same). Plaintiff specifically relies on a federal regulation promulgated under the ADA. The federal regulation on which Plaintiff relies provides that "[w]here necessary or upon request, [a public or private entity's transportation vehicle] personnel shall assist individuals with disabilities with the use of . . . ramps[.] If it is necessary for the personnel to leave their seats to provide this assistance, they shall do so." 49 C.F.R. § 37.165. Plaintiff proffers evidence that Defendant's bus driver told her it was "okay" to proceed back down the ramp when he saw that one of her wheels was "in the air," and that Defendant's bus driver never left his seat to assist Plaintiff, as the regulation requires. (Pl.'s Dep. at 33; Hickerson Dep. at 21; Pl.'s Interrog. ¶ 7(e)).
The Third Circuit has not yet spoken on the issue of compensatory damages under Title II, "but all other Circuit Courts of Appeals addressing the issue have held that compensatory damages are unavailable absent a showing of intentional discrimination." Meadows v. Hudson Cty. Bd. of Elections, No. 04-3979, 2006 WL 2482956, at *10 (D.N.J. Aug. 24, 2006) (citing Ferguson v. City of Phoenix, 157 F.3d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1998); Wood v. President and Trs. of Spring Hill Coll., 978 F.2d 1214, 1220 (11th Cir. 1992); Carter v. Orleans Parish Pub. Schs., 725 F.2d 261, 264 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam)). District courts within the Third Circuit have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., Meadows, 2006 WL 2482956 at *10; Bowers v. NCAA, No. 97-2600, 2001 WL 1850089, at *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 6, 2001); Adelman v. Dunmire, No. 95-4039, 1996 WL 107853, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 1996) (citing Tafoya v. Bobroff, 865 F. Supp. 742, 748 (D.N.M. 1994)); Douris v. Bucks Cty. Off. of Dist. Atty., 2004 WL 1529169, at *5 n.7 (E.D. Pa. 2004), aff'd, 150 Fed. App'x 113 (3d Cir. 2005). We agree that Plaintiff must show intentional discrimination in order to recover money damages under Title II of the ADA. See Dorsett v. SEPTA, No. 04-5968, 2005 WL 2077252, at *5 (E.D. Pa. 2005) ("In order to obtain compensatory damages for a Title II violation, a plaintiff must demonstrate intentional discrimination.").
Defendant asserts that there is no evidence that Defendant intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff and, thus, Plaintiff may not maintain this ADA claim for compensatory damages. (Doc. No. 10 at unnumbered 22.) Defendant is correct. Plaintiff proffers no evidence to support an inference that the bus driver acted intentionally, that the bus driver acted by reason of Plaintiff's disability, or that the bus driver's conduct was not confined to this single occasion. Dorsett is instructive in this regard. See 2005 WL 2077252, at *5. In Dorsett, the plaintiff was confined to a wheelchair and regularly used SEPTA for transportation. Id. at *1. The plaintiff "took approximately 760 rides on SEPTA buses, and received good service from SEPTA in a majority of cases." Id. However, the plaintiff also experienced over a dozen "incidents of poor service" in which the plaintiff received less assistance than that to which he was entitled. Id. For example, there were three incidents where the plaintiff was unable to access the bus using the wheelchair lift, three incidents where the plaintiff received no assistance securing the wheelchair, four incidents where the assistance was insufficient, and two incidents where bus drivers were discourteous. Id. at *2-*3. The plaintiff asserted that federal regulations promulgated under the ADA required SEPTA to train drivers "to treat individuals with disabilities . . . in a respectful and courteous way" and "to operate vehicles and equipment safely." Id. at *5. The court found no evidence of intentional discrimination, since the plaintiff never experienced a repeat incident with the same SEPTA driver, SEPTA investigated the plaintiff's complaints, and SEPTA reminded drivers of their responsibilities to assist the disabled. Id. at *6. Summary judgment was granted in favor of SEPTA. Id. at *7.
Here, the record shows that Plaintiff "asked for help" from the bus driver on a single occasion and "he never got out of his seat to assist [her]." (Pl.'s Interrog. ¶ 7(e)). However, as in Dorsett, there is no evidence of intentional discrimination. See 2005 WL 2077252, at *5. On the contrary, the record shows that Defendant's bus driver instructed Plaintiff on how to board the bus using the ramp -- either by notifying Plaintiff that her wheel was not on the ramp, as the bus driver testified (Hickerson Dep. at 20); or by instructing Plaintiff to drive over a "hump" in the ramp at a faster speed, as Plaintiff testified, since she was moving "slow" (Pl.'s Dep. at 28-29, 32.)*fn10 The record also shows that all of Defendant's buses are handicapped-equipped, and Defendant has in place policies and procedures designed to ensure proper accommodation of passengers like Plaintiff who use mobility devices. (Hickerson Dep. at 7; Doc. No. 11, Ex. E.) In fact, before the incident, Defendant provided the bus driver with a "whole day" of instruction on how to operate the wheelchair ramp that Plaintiff used. (Hickerson Dep. at 10-11.) Moreover, as in Dorsett, there is no evidence of any repeat incident with the SEPTA driver. See 2005 WL 2077252, at *5. There is also no evidence to show that Plaintiff made complaints from which it could be determined that SEPTA was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's needs. The ADA regulations "do not contemplate perfect service for wheelchair-using bus commuters." Id. (citing Midgett v. Tri-Cty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or., 254 F.3d 846, 849 (9th Cir. 2001)). "Occasional problems, without more, do not constitute a violation of the ADA." Id. At most, the evidence demonstrated that Defendant acted negligently on a single occasion. There is no evidence in the record that Defendant acted with discriminatory animus or in deliberate indifference.*fn11
Finally, we reject Plaintiff contention that Defendant "has removed the element of 'intent' when it comes to violations of the ADA" merely because the SEPTA Bus Operations Rules and Regulations Manual states that "any refusal by an employee to assist a disabled person is a violation of the ADA, whether intentional or not." (Doc. No. 11 at 15.) What constitutes a compensable violation of the ADA is determined by Congress and the courts. SEPTA's characterization of what the ADA requires is not determinative. Plaintiff's ADA claim for compensatory damages is therefore without merit. Plaintiff has not requested any other form of relief.*fn12
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted. An appropriate Order follows.
AND NOW, this 22nd day of January, 2009, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 10), and Plaintiff's Cross Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 11), it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED.
2. Plaintiff's Cross Motion to Amend Complaint is DENIED as moot.
R. Barclay Surrick, J.
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:
Altwork Reclining Desk Ushers In Our Dystopian Future
The Altwork Station allows you to use a computer comfortably while reclining, for "working."By Matt Picht | October 28, 2015
Don't be alarmed, these are not the dentist chairs of your nightmares. What you're watching is one company's attempt to disrupt the humble work desk.
California startup Altwork is pulling back the curtain on its high-tech workstation, which will "physically conform to the needs of humans in the workplace." Translation: You get to recline and lie down while working.
The desk comes with four different modes: standing, sitting, a collaborative mode, which lets you rotate the screen, and so-called "focus" mode, which lets you recline. Magnets keep the keyboard and mouse anchored to the desk, and we're sure the desk is strong enough to keep your monitor from falling on your face.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Got a version of Excel that uses the menu interface (Excel 97, Excel 2000, Excel 2002, or Excel 2003)? This site is for you! If you use a later version of Excel, visit our ExcelTips site focusing on the ribbon interface.
With more than 50 non-fiction books and numerous magazine articles to his credit, Allen Wyatt is an internationally recognized author. He is president of Sharon Parq Associates, a computer and publishing services company.
Learn more about Allen...
ExcelTips FAQ
ExcelTips Resources
Ask an Excel Question
Make a Comment
Free Business Forms
Free Calendars
Please Note: This article is written for users of the following Microsoft Excel versions: 97, 2000, 2002, and 2003. If you are using a later version (Excel 2007 or later), this tip may not work for you. For a version of this tip written specifically for later versions of Excel, click here: Positioning a Graphic in a Macro.
Felix is writing a macro to add a graphic to a worksheet. He needs to position the graphic relative to the top-left corner of a particular cell. He wonders how he can place the graphic, within the macro code, so it is just to the right and beneath the upper-left corner of a given cell.
This task is relatively easy to do if you realize that each cell in a worksheet has both a Top and Left property that defines the location of both the top and left edges of the cell. You can adjust those values, slightly, to get the offset that you want, in this manner:
Dim rCell As Range Set rCell = Range("A2") With ActiveSheet.Shapes("Picture 1") .Top = rCell.Top + 5 .Left = rCell.Left + 3 End With
Note that after this code is executed the graphic (defined by the name Picture 1) is placed just below the top edge of cell A2 and just to the right of its left edge.
ExcelTips is your source for cost-effective Microsoft Excel training. This tip (9725) applies to Microsoft Excel 97, 2000, 2002, and 2003. You can find a version of this tip for the ribbon interface of Excel (Excel 2007 and later) here: Positioning a Graphic in a Macro.
Related Tips:
Solve Real Business Problems Master business modeling and analysis techniques with Excel and transform data into bottom-line results. This hands-on, scenario-focused guide shows you how to use the latest Excel tools to integrate data from multiple tables. Check out Microsoft Excel 2013 Data Analysis and Business Modeling today!


text:
Classic FM's Mozart Marathon to mark 225th anniversary of composer's death
Nothing but Mozart on the radio for 24 hours.
Skip to Content
The World's Greatest Music
Email the show or Text 61812
Nothing but Mozart on the radio for 24 hours.
The addition you never knew it needed.
Was the great composer slowly destroyed by a man envious of his talent? Our resident Mozart specialist John Suchet investigates...
John Suchet explores the life and music of one of the greatest composers ever.
Yes, we feel inadequate too.
Walter Berry, we salute your superior technique.
If the Classical genius used social media, it might look a little something like this...
Let us show you where to start with opera - what to listen out for, which composers to seek out and whether to bring your opera glasses…
Superb artistry shines through this excellent new release. Classic FM Drive Featured Album, 5 May 2014.
It's one of the most talked-about pieces of classical music in history thanks to its fascinating composition, but which version is the best? Here are eight of the greatest.
Jane Jones explores Mozart's Marriage Mass – or how to make peace with your parents.
One of the greats of classical music bows out, but how did Mozart die? Was it Salieri, the mysterious Count von Walsegg, or some badly cooked chops?
Did Mozart meet Beethoven? What was the deal with the freemasons? And would The Marriage of Figaro solve Mozart's financial problems?
Wedded bliss soon turns to tragedy for the Mozart family, all while Wolfgang celebrates an early operatic triumph.
The story of how Mozart met his wife, Constanze, and how she appeared in one of his greatest operas
Mozart's compositions become ever more incredible, his character becomes more exuberant and we learn a little more about the family dog...
Mozart travels through Italy, knackers his hands, and composes some key early works
Mozart wrote Allegri's Miserere down note for note - after hearing it once.
The epic Mozart family tour that dominated so much of Wolfgang's early life finally came to an end, but what came next?
A choral masterpiece whose genesis is shrouded in mystery.
Mozart's first taste of the touring lifestyle came in 1762, and with it came musical discoveries and illness
Discover what Mozart's early years were like - was he a genius from birth?
Meet the Mozart family - the people that were closest to Wolfgang himself throughout his life
How tall was Mozart? And who's the shortest composer? Find out with our composer heights infographic!
From his earliest days as a prodigy in Bonn, Ludwig van Beethoven's great ambition had been to travel to Vienna to meet - and take lessons with - the man he knew was the greatest living composer, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
How do you tell a Classical era piece from a Romantic or Baroque piece? What is the Classical sound? Find out with our handy guide
Classic FM takes a look at the woman who inspired Mozart to write the part of Susanna in The Marriage of Figaro
A closer look at the genius of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
When it comes to concertos, Mozart had things pretty sewn up. Nearly all of them are still regularly performed and well-loved, no matter the instrument
From 'Paris' to 'Jupiter', Classic FM takes you on a whistle-stop tour through Mozart's best and most exciting symphonies


text: Beware of Botnets I'm so paranoid about bots that I recently rebuilt one of my home machines because it was exhibiting strange symptoms, including weird hard drive accesses and slower-than-normal operation. Contents Beware of Botnets HELIO OCEAN HELIO OCEAN: I've just had a sneak peek at Helio's amazing new Ocean phone, and that's what I'm going to buy. Not only will it support corporate e-mail, but it also will integrate all my AIM accounts, POP e-mail, Gmail, and more. The local search looks amazing; it's half the price of the iPhone; and the monthly service contract, with unlimited data, starts at just $10 more than the Sidekick. It's not just me. Notorious Helio skeptic Sascha Segan, our phone analyst, is similarly smitten. The phone should have shipped by late May, and our online review should be up by the time you read this. Check out our cell-phone product guide at PCMag.com. We'll have a print review, too, most likely in our next issue. By then, I hope finally to have kissed my Treo good-bye once and for all and to have taken the plunge into the OceanHelio style. FASTEST ISP: Speaking of broadband, this issue features our annual ISP speed tests. Instead of just surveying our readers, we wrote a utility called SurfSpeed that over 40,000 of you downloaded to share your real broadband speed with us. Executive editor Jeremy Kaplan and our research department crunched the numbers and came up with surprising state-by-state results. Turns out that DSL is sometimes faster than cable, and that fiber isn't as fast as you'd think. Don't fall for surveys that claim to identify the fastest ISP. Only PC Magazine gives you real test data. Our coverage starts on here. Discuss this article in the forums. More Jim Louderback:


text:
Finding Scandia Motors can be a little challenging. The garage run by Ken Witala is tucked away down an alley off the Lougheed Highway in Maple Ridge, but since the mid-80s people have been seeking out Ken and his expertise when it comes to Volvos.
Why Volvos? "I just fell into it," says Ken. He started out by pumping gas at a station in Burnaby, when former dealership mechanic Geoff Silcock left Don Docksteader and rented out the bays where he worked. "Geoff was a Volvo guy, and when he rented the bays it was a Volvo repair shop and it just build from there."
Ken started working with Geoff part-time before they left and started Swedish Service in Burnaby. "I worked there for a while till Geoff sold the business, and when he started Scandia a couple years later I joined him there." The intention was for Ken to work with Geoff until it was time for Geoff to retire or move on to other things, and in September of 1996 Ken was able to take over from Geoff and has been operating Scandia ever since.Apprenez-en davantage sur Scandia Motors
Vos amis connaissent peut-être ce marchand? Partagez cette page sur Facebook et découvrez ce qu'ils en pensent!
Les lignes directrices de Pages Jaunes expliquent ce qui est considéré comme étant inapproprié sur le site. Nous nous réservons le droit de supprimer le contenu que nous jugeons comme offensant ou en violation de ces lignes directrices. Merci de sélectionner la raison pour laquelle ce contenu vous semble inapproprié.
Merci de votre aide
Le commentaire a été signalé à nos modérateurs et sera analysé.
Désirez-vous vraiment supprimer ce commentaire?


text:
Hotels in Greenville, South Carolina
Search & Compare Greenville Hotels
Get Secret Prices on select hotels
These prices aren't available to everyone.
Trending now in Greenville
- Most bookedHampton Inn Greenville I-385 Woodruff Rd.
106 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"The Hampton Inn offers great value for premium bedding and a hot breakfast in the morning. I was quite tired from a great deal of travel and really needed a good sleep during my short stop in Greenville. I knew that I could count on the Hampton Inn for a comfortable bed. I also like the fact t..."
A Traveller, Oct 2016, US
- Drury Inn & Suites - Greenville, SCTop-rated for families
103 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"Family of 4 stayed at the hotel for the weekend while attending a soccer tournament. Rooms were very nice and beds were super comfortable. Breakfast was also great with a large selection of items. My sons had no problem finding something they liked and eating til they were full. Also, this lo..."
B, Nov 2016, US
- Hyatt Place Greenville/HaywoodTop-rated for business travelers
43 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"This was my first stay at a Hyatt Place hotel, we loved it. The atmosphere when we first walked in was so inviting, the layout of the room was great. The bathroom was in the back of the room instead of the front by the door. There was a nice seating area, plenty of room. The staff was so h..."
A Traveller, Dec 2016, US
- Hyatt Regency GreenvilleTop-rated for business travelers
43 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"It was a nice hotel but I reserved a city view room and got a view of the covered outdoor pool and the side of a brick building. No view of the city. There was a sock in the floor upon our arrival as well"
A Traveller, Nov 2016, US
- The Westin Poinsett GreenvilleTop-rated for families
41 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"Perfect for a night in Greenville while visiting family for Thanksgiving. Can walk to any destination in the beautiful downtown area for a great meal or entertainment. The hotel is beautiful, room was clean and comfortable, quiet."
A Traveller, Nov 2016, US
- Hilton GreenvilleTop-rated for families
36 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"Curtains wouldn't close. Shower left a lot to be desired."
A Traveller, Nov 2016, US
- Embassy Suites Greenville Golf Resort & Conference CenterTop-rated for families
30 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"Greeted with a smile and staff very accommodating. "
J, Nov 2016, US
- Hilton Garden Inn GreenvilleTop-rated for business travelers
25 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"Very nice hotel. Room was clean and nicely appointed. Only disappointment was restaurant which was not very creative. Limited menu was satisfactory. Wine list was a disgrace. Personnel were very nice and accomodating"
A Traveller, Oct 2016, US
- Courtyard by Marriott Greenville DowntownTop-rated for families
25 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"This hotel was prefect for walking around in downtown Greenville. For the price at this location, I feel that a hot breakfast should be included."
T, Oct 2016, US
19 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"A good combination of clean, good service and value"
W, Dec 2016, US
Map of Greenville hotels
- Bon Secours Wellness Arena
- Falls Park on the Reedy
- Haywood Mall
- Furman University Golf Club
- TD Convention Center
- The Peace Center
- Bob Jones University
- Fluor Field at the West End
- Greenville Zoo
- Conestee Park
- Patewood Memorial Hospital
- Roper Mountain Science Center
- CU Intl. Center for Automotive Research
- Christ Episcopal Church
- Greenville County Museum of Art
- Beattie House
- Bob Jones University Museum and Gallery
- Kilgore Lewis House
- Greenville Downtown
Best hotels in Greenville
Greenville overviewGreenville is a budget-friendly place distinct for its sports and theaters. You're sure to appreciate the ample coffee and bar options. Spend a relaxing day at Falls Park on the Reedy and Heritage Park when the weather is nice. Popular sights like The Peace Center and BMW Zentrum won't disappoint. Greenville is a family- and business-friendly destination with something for everyone.
Where to stay in GreenvilleA welcoming city for all, Greenville has a variety of lodging options. There are 95 hotels in the Greenville area, some with discounts of up to 15%.
- • 32 2-star hotels with an average price of $55 per night
- • 52 3-star hotels with an average price of $75 per night
- • 8 4-star hotels with an average price of $119 per night
Here are the top hotels based on 11108 user reviews of Greenville hotels:
- • Swamp Rabbit Inn (Greenville)
- • Hampton Inn Greenville/I-385 Haywood Mall (Greenville)
- • Home2 Suites by Hilton Greenville Airport (Greenville)
- • Candlewood Suites Greenville (Greenville)
- • Drury Inn & Suites - Greenville, SC (Greenville)
How to get to GreenvilleFly in to Greenville, SC (GSP-Greenville-Spartanburg Intl.), 10.7 mi (17.2 km) from downtown Greenville. Greenville Station is the closest train station.
What to see around GreenvilleFun activities include attractions such as:
- • Bon Secours Wellness Arena
- • Fluor Field at the West End
- • Sirrine Stadium
- • Eugene Stone Soccer Stadium
- • 7th Inning Splash Waterpark
- • Greenville Zoo
- • Lakeside Park
- • Frankie's Fun Park
- • LeMans Karting
- • Golden Lanes and Golden Skate
- • Alchemy Comedy Theater
- • Centre Stage
- • The Peace Center
- • Greenville Little Theater
- • Warehouse Theatre
- • Lewis Plaza Shopping Center
- • Pleasantburg Shopping Center
- • McAlister Square
- • Wade Hampton Mall Shopping Center
- • Old Towne Shopping Center
- • Falls Park on the Reedy
- • BMW Zentrum
- • Heritage Park
When to visit GreenvilleIf you're still deciding when to visit, here are the seasonal norms to help you plan:
Seasonal temperature averages
- • January-March: 67°F day, 31°F night
- • April-June: 88°F day, 44°F night
- • July-September: 89°F day, 56°F night
- • October-December: 76°F day, 32°F night
- • January-March: 12.7 inches
- • April-June: 12.0 inches
- • July-September: 13.9 inches
- • October-December: 12.1 inches


text:
I Blame Coco - The Constant (Album) 2010
Date: 5.10.2010 | --- | Download I Blame Coco - The Constant (Album) 2010 for free.
Debut album 20-year-old English singer Coco Sumner (Sting's daughter) and its electro-pop band I Blame Coco, entitled The Constant
I Blame Coco - The Constant
Electropop | 14 Tracks | MP3 | 320 kbps | 44,1kHz | 48:31 min | 109.95 Mb
Uploaded: letitbit.net, turbobit.net
1. Selfmachine
2. In Spirit Golden
3. Quicker
4. Turn Your Back On Love
5. Please Rewind
6. Summer Rain
7. Playwright Fate
8. The Constant
9. Party Bag
10. No Smile
11. Caesar (feat. Robyn)
12. Only Love Can Break Your Heart
13. It's About To Get Worse
14. Quicker (Rack N Ruin Rework) (iTunes Bonus Track)
All references to music (video) are presented only for fact-finding listening and located not on our server. All files lay on foreign servers to which site Freshremix.ru irrelevant. Our site is only site on which Users spread references to these files which are publicly available. After listening you must delete the downloaded file and get a legal copy.


text:
2nd Grade Science Projects
Why Doesn't the Ocean Freeze? | Education.com 2nd grade science project
States of Matter: Baking Soda in a balloon, on top of a bottle filled with vinegar makes a gas and fills up the balloon.
Do you live in a place where hot and humid air makes the weather unstable in July and August? It might be the perfect time to study different types of clouds with your kids.
Dancing Raisins Science Experiment for Kids - This is such a fun science project for preschool, kindergarten, 1st grade, and 2nd grade kids. They will be amazed as they see chemical properties at work (science, homeschool, kids activities)
Build your own anemometer for measuring wind speed. Approved by Andrea Beaty author of Rosie Revere Engineer.
Greenhouses. Ziplock bag, wet cotton balls and seeds. You can see all the plant parts. This has a printable for the "house". Although I think I might just tape the bags to the window and have a lot of them.
apple science experiment - What keeps them from turning brown?
Snow globes! Now, I cannot take any kind of credit for this adorable project. My fab teammate made these when she taught kindergarteners and she shared with us! (however, I'll show you how we spruced it up a bit). Tell your kiddos that they will…
Four season tree by a second grader. (My second graders apparently do not know what a tree looks like. sigh. Wish my four seasons pick looked ANYTHING like this) PS great idea for second grade it aligns with their science curriculum


text:
The 2018 FIFA World Cup will be the 21st FIFA World Cup, an international men's football tournament, that is scheduled to take place between 14 June and 15 July 2018 in Russia. This will be the first World Cup held in the area of the former Soviet Union and the first since 2006 to be held in Europe.
Whisper it quietly around the Emirates, but the summer of 2017 might just be the time for Arsenal to look at cashing in on their two prized assets.
Jose Mourinhos Manchester United qualified for the last 32 of the Europa League with a 2-0 win inUkraine against Zorya Luhansk.
Arsenal appear to be on a bit of a roll after completing the opening Champions League group stage top of
Celtic concluded their Champions League campaign with a 1-1 draw against Manchester City on Tuesday night.
Chelsea are having a spell in the sunshine this winter, already building a healthy lead at the top of the
In each of the previous six seasons Arsenal have exited the Champions League at the Round of 16 stage and


text:
Bowers & Wilkins CWM 800 is an in-wall two-way speaker setup designed for use with medium-sized home theatre setups. It is largely based on the CWM 500 model, and shares many features, like a two-position treble cutoff/boost switch. The main difference is that this model has improved bass and mid ranges because of a larger Kevlar driver, measuring 200mm. The tweeter is still an aluminum dome and measures 25mm. This upgrade increases the price of the unit, usually sold in pairs, and also increases the frequency response to 35 Hz - 30kHz. It has swing-out fixings that allow for easier installation and a paintable off-white mat to match the wall color.
- Ideal for small or mid-size home theatre installations
- Simple installation
- 25mm aluminum tweeter
- 200mm Kevlar bass/mid driver
- 89 dB spl
- 150W continuous, on unclipped program
- Treble contour switch
- 35Hz - 30kHz frequency response
- Off-white paintable mat with included paint mask
Add New
ResourcesAdd New
Add New Resource
Twitter TagsEdit
Add New
Edit Information
- Initial Product DescriptionJul 02, 2014 at 01:59 AM
- Started ByBowers & Wilkins
- Last editedJul 02, 2014 at 01:59 AM
- Last contributorBowers & Wilkins
- Number of edits4
- Number of contributors1
- Top ContributorBowers & Wilkins


text:
Click on the photos below to view individual galleries. Contact us HERE to schedule your session or wedding photography with me!
I'm Kristin Smetona, a portrait and wedding photographer in Orange County, California. I specialize in engagement, wedding, maternity, newborn, baby, children, and family photography servicing Orange County, Los Angeles. and worldwide. On this site you'll find my portfolio, pricing, more about me, and how to book me for a session. If you're interested in booking me for a session or wedding, call me, email me, or fill out the contact form!
I call Old Towne Orange my home, but I also travel for portrait sessions and weddings. (I have been fortunate to travel as far as Mexico, Ireland, France, & Switzerland for photography!)I love being Dustin's wife, Eli's mom, spending time with my church, and the color Tiffany Blue!


text:
Riddel, Conrad Gargett Architecture to merge
November 22, 2012
On the 26th of this month, Riddel Architecture will officially join Conrad Gargett Architecture to become Conrad Gargett Riddel.
On the 26th of this month, Riddel Architecture will officially join Conrad Gargett Architecture to become Conrad Gargett Riddel.
Above: Concept for Queensland Children's Hospital, Conrad Gargett Architecture and Lyons.
On the 26th of this month, Riddel Architecture (RA) will officially join Conrad Gargett Architecture (CGA) to become Conrad Gargett Riddel.
Having had a close relationship for a number of years, CGA and RA will become a new combined team focusing on contemporary design and heritage conservation.
"We are very pleased to have RA on board," says Bruce Wolfe, Managing Director of CGA, who believes that the merging of the two practices will enable a better, broader and deeper service – with RA bringing complementary experience in education, commercial, residential and aged care projects.
"They are a great team and will strengthen our practice, particularly in the areas of heritage and conservation consultancy."
Founder and Principal of RA, Robert Riddel, says "we are all looking forward to joining CGA and combining out expertise for the best possible project outcomes".
Riddel will become a Principal and his fellow RA Director, David Gole, will become Senior Associate of Conrad Gargett Riddel.
CGA's projects include the new Queensland Children's Hospital with Lyons (current), the National Trust of Queensland's major award-winning adaptive reuse and restoration of Old Government House, the St Stephen's Francis Rush Centre and the State Law Building (commonly known as Gotham City). RA's noteworthy projects include the restoration and adaptive reuse of Brisbane Customs House, the nationally awarded restoration of the Former West's Furniture Showroom and the internationally recognised Hill End Ecohouse.
Conrad Gargett Riddel will operate from the current CGA offices in Brisbane, Sydney and Townsville.
Congratulations to all concerned, a commendable move.
As a matter of extraordinary coincidence, exactly 60 years ago on this day November 22, Bill (WAH) Conrad and I received our RAAF Wings from AVM George Jones at Archerfield while serving with No 23 City of Brisbane Squadron Citizen Air Force. We both went on after our flying days to enjoy long, happy careers in Architecture.
Ronald Purssey FRAIA


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.
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department
November 29, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF KEVIN SMITH, PETITIONER,v.BRIAN FISCHER, AS COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT.
Calendar Date: October 29, 2012
Before: Mercure, J.P., Rose, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Garry, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a disciplinary rule.
Petitioner, an inmate, was found guilty of violating a disciplinary rule prohibiting possession of gang-related material. The misbehavior report states that during a search of petitioner's property upon his transfer from another facility, a photograph showing a gang-related hand gesture, 12 pages of material containing language consistent with a gang and two envelopes with names associated with a gang were confiscated. Contrary to petitioner's contentions, the misbehavior report, the seized material and the testimony of a sergeant and a correction officer who were both trained in recognizing gang-related material constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination (see Matter of Flournoy v Bezio, 84 AD3d 1636, 1637 [2011]; Matter of Wheeler-Whichard v Fischer, 69 AD3d 1286, 1286 [2010]). Although petitioner asserts that the photograph and other materials had been reviewed and found to be unobjectionable by the facility from which he transferred, the material is nonetheless prohibited by the prison disciplinary rule (see Matter of Arrington v Venettozzi, 87 AD3d 1215, 1215-1216 [2011]; Matter of Delos Santos v Goord, 4 AD3d 709, 710 [2004]). Finally, a correction officer at petitioner's former facility provided a statement disputing his claim that he never received the revised rule book containing the rule of which he was found guilty, creating a credibility question that the Hearing Officer was entitled to resolve against petitioner (see Matter of Rogers v Fischer, 96 AD3d 1318, 1318-1319 [2012]).
Mercure, J.P., Rose, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
© 1992-2012 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:
Great-looking sterling necklace of braided herringbone link chain. The effect is beautiful: the necklace lies flat, looks substantial, and sparkles aplenty. The necklace closes with a sturdy lobster-claw clasp, and is well marked 925 MD28V MEX. The length is 20", and the weight is 16.7 g. Condition is excellent.
Another shopper has this item in their Cart or Wish List .
Vintage jewelry and other fabulous finds from the past
Fall is fantastic! Enjoy yourself and don't forget to check out the latest finds on Jade Parrot.
|Shipping & Handling :
Price for shipping to USA
change location | more services
USPS First-Class Mail Parcel


text:
Softspikes Pulsar Small Thread Spikes
Softspike's Dynamic Cleat Technology provides top tier traction, comfort and performance. This cleat features 8 flexible legs with 16 component design that feels every angle of force from the golfer. The eight flexible legs feature softer flexor knuckles to enhance grip on the greens. The arched webbing between the legs receives the energy created to return it back to the cleat through compression, the results – better traction and stability.
- Metal Thread Fits:
Adidas: Traxion Paragon 2001-2006
Asics All styles before 2001
Dunlop All styles
Etonic All styles before 2000
Footjoy Classics/Dry Premiere
Nike All styles before 2001
Puma SF Lux Limited
Tommy Armour All Styles
Top Flight All styles before 2005
- Reactive Comfort Technology
- 16 component design with 8 flexible legs
- Flexor knuckles on the ends of the legs
- Durable
Reviewed by 1 customer
- Comfortable
- Durable
- Stylish
Best Uses
- Tournament Play
- Weekend Rounds
Comments about Softspikes Pulsar Small Thread Spikes:
Looks great and easily changeable.
- Was this a gift?:
- No


text:
Explore Spain Shopping, Shopping List and more!
grey booties for my collection. boyfriend jeans, skinnies, and all the layers you can imagine for the cold weather!
Fall Fashion summer transition layering ideas
Steve Madden boots You'll be the hottest cowgirl in the saloon wearing the flirtatious fashion of these Steven Satirday boots! Nubuck leather upper. Price: $194.65 Only in black
Casual & cute
lace socks, under boots. cute!


text:
Spinach salad with warm spicy citrus dressing
Total Time
Prep 20 mins
Cook 10 mins
A very light, tasty salad. Simple but different
Ingredients Nutrition
- 2 -3 cups young spinach, washed,trimmed and patted dry
- 1⁄2 red bell pepper, cut into long thin ribbons
- 4 tablespoons shelled sunflower seeds
- 1 orange, juice of
- 1⁄2 lemon, juice of
- 2 teaspoons oil (use canola, or a mixture or a flavorful nut oil and canola)
- 1 teaspoon softened cream cheese (light is ok)
- 1 -2 teaspoon chili flakes
- Wash, trim and dry the spinach.
- Cut the red pepper in to decorative strips.
- Make the dressing: In a small pan, combine the juices and the oil over medium heat.
- Heat, stirring briskly until bubbling and the oil begins to emulsify with the juices.
- Add the cream cheese and stir until it is entirely melted and incorporated.
- Add the chili flakes and take off the heat.
- Arrange the spinach and the red pepper on 2 plates.
- Sprinkle the sunflower seeds on top of the salads and around the edge of the plate.
- (Can be made ahead of time up to this point).
- Strain the dressing through a fine seive.
- Return to the pan and reheat if it is not still warm.
- Pour hot over the salads and enjoy immediately.


text:
One More for Me...
Total Time
Prep 5 mins
Cook 10 mins
This is a one pot dish made out of milk. Children adore it. It's easy and cheap to make. Perfect for winter evenings
Ingredients Nutrition
- 1 liter milk
- 8 tablespoons flour
- 1 tablespoon margarine or 1 tablespoon butter
- 1 pinch salt
- sugar
- cinnamon
- Bring milk to the boil.
- Add flour and salt, stirring constantly.
- Add margarine.
- Cook until thick (LIKE WHITE SAUCE).
- Take of stove,whisk for one minute while adding cinnamon and sugar to taste.
- Dish up and enjoy.
- PS: Keep some for second helpings, you'll need to.


text:
Video: The John Edwards Poverty Tour; Update: HuffPo commenters outrageously outraged
posted at 11:10 am on July 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
Via HuffPo. The jokes are obvious after the first nanosecond but it gets better as it goes. Mild content warning for a description of just how impoverished these Monsters Monsters Monsters of Poverty are.
Update: I am reliably informed by several readers that it's worth your time to follow the comments at the link.
Breaking on Hot Air
Video: The freaky deaky fully automated "no checkout" Amazon store
Appeals court agrees to put Obamacare lawsuit on hold until Trump takes office


text:
"Ah, breaker breaker one-niner, this here's the Moosejaw Original Flexfit Trucker Hat, coming up on your six."
I have no idea what any of that means. In fact, nobody does. The trucker language has yet to be deciphered by modern man. What we do know is that this trucker-style, moisture-wicking, breezy snapback cap will keep your melon looking and feeling cool as you chew up miles on the open road.
So sorry, but only 4 items are allowed for comparison, so we're comparing the first 4. I blame the gnomes and so should you.
Would you like to compare the products you have selected now?


text:
Dow Jones Global Indexes | Global Stock Markets
Shire's stock needs a dose of the biopharmaceutical company's own medicine to kick a lingering bout of weakness. Its American depositary receipts have been laid low in 2012, largely due to generic competition for one of Shire's top-selling ADHD treatments. But the selloff seems overdone, and the price can bounce back.
The ADRs (ticker: SHPG shpg 0.9096109839816934% Shire PLC ADR U.S.: Nasdaq USD176.39 1.59 0.9096109839816934% /Date(1480975200447-0600)/ Volume (Delayed 15m) : 851838 AFTER HOURS USD175.8264 -0.5636 -0.3195192471228528% Volume (Delayed 15m) : 3443 P/E Ratio 115.74146981627297 Market Cap 52519636542.6427 Dividend Yield 0.1574919213107319% Rev. per Employee 1586860 More quote details and news » ), which closed Friday at $91.18, could hit $115 in the next 12 months, an upside of more than 25%. Since the start of 2012, the ADRs have oscillated like a fever between good health and bad—a 52-week high of $108.79 and a low of $80.09. They have lost 13% in value since the start of the year, while Shire's industry peers are up 12%. It has a market value of $16.8 billion.
Shire trades at 13.7 times forecast 2013 earnings per share of $6.60. That's cheap compared with rivals: Forest Laboratories (FRX) trades at more than 70 times, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma 4506.TO -0.32485110990795885% Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co. Ltd. Japan: Tokyo JPY1841 -6 -0.32485110990795885% /Date(1481045400000-0600)/ Volume (Delayed 20m) : 664900 P/E Ratio 32.647632558964354 Market Cap 736115289062.5 Dividend Yield 0.977729494839761% Rev. per Employee 60081800 More quote details and news » (4506.Japan) at 26 times, and UCB ucb.bt -1.2428619415518978% UCB S.A. Belgium: Brussels EUR58.8 -0.74 -1.2428619415518978% /Date(1480980920000-0600)/ Volume (Delayed 15m) : 339334 P/E Ratio 32.30769230769231 Market Cap 11580866951.2002 Dividend Yield 1.870748299319728% Rev. per Employee 510786 More quote details and news » (UCB.Belgium) at 24 times.
Dublin-based Shire has grown rapidly in recent years due to its focus on specialty pharmaceuticals for the treatment of rare illnesses and conditions like Fabry disease, Hunter syndrome, and ulcerative colitis.
The company's origin stems from its expertise in the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, which accounted for $1.55 billion of Shire's sales of $4.26 billion in 2011. Shire has a quarter of the U.S. market for ADHD treatments, which is growing at 10% a year.
It suffered a blow when one of its most popular treatments, Adderall, was exposed to generic competition in the second quarter and sales fell 32% in the third quarter. But Shire's other ADHD treatments—Vyvanse, its top-selling medicine, and Intuniv—are helping to fill the void. Both are growing at rates of more than 20% annually. As a result, Shire's third-quarter sales rose 4% year-on-year, in spite of Adderall's performance.
There are plenty of supplies in Shire's bathroom cabinet to keep sales growing. Some are aimed at treating conditions for which there are no approved therapies. Shire spent $770 million on research and development last year, or about 20% of sales. It continues to invest in its pipeline of specialty pharmaceuticals, human genetic therapies, and regenerative medicines. The company is also seeking regulatory approval for use of its ADHD drugs to treat other ailments.
The drop in Adderall sales won't inhibit Shire's ability to meet its earnings-growth targets in 2013 and beyond. Sales are forecast to grow at a healthy clip, to $4.68 billion in 2012, $4.95 billion in 2013, and $5.32 billion in 2014. Earnings per share should climb from $6.10 this year to $7.49 in 2014.
Shire's balance sheet is robust. It carries no debt and at the end of the September quarter disclosed cash and equivalents of $1.32 billion, or $7.08 a share. The company may be predisposed toward small acquisitions, but in October it announced a $500 million buyback, taking advantage of the low share price. That might be a precursor to a higher full-year dividend. The stock yields a miserly 0.5%.
A management change is on the horizon at Shire. Flemming Ornskov, currently an executive at Bayer bayn.xe 2.2189984955942403% Bayer AG ADR U.S.: OTC USD95.125 2.065 2.2189984955942403% /Date(1480980000000-0600)/ Volume (Delayed 15m) : 91089 P/E Ratio 15.086275256129667 Market Cap 76828631546.2417 Dividend Yield 3.0144546649145862% Rev. per Employee 439274 More quote details and news » (BAYN.Germany), is due to become chief executive at the end of April, succeeding Angus Russell, who has led Shire for the past 13 years. However, the company's conservative approach is unlikely to change much. It has a winning formula that's provided a solid foundation for growth.
GERMANY'S BENCHMARK DAX index, which has gained 27% in 2012, closed Thursday at a five-year high. Europe's single largest economy should continue to defy the malaise across the region in 2013 as its export industries benefit from economic growth in the U.S. and Asia.
The Stoxx Europe 600 closed Friday at 279.17 points, up 1.2% on the week, led by a 2.4% jump in the basic materials sector.
Mining companies like Anglo American AAL.LN 3.1390134529147984% Anglo American PLC ADR U.S.: OTC USD8.05 0.245 3.1390134529147984% /Date(1480980003000-0600)/ Volume (Delayed 15m) : 172468 P/E Ratio N/A Market Cap 21460069209.5445 Dividend Yield N/A Rev. per Employee 201774 More quote details and news » (AAL.UK) and Rio Tinto (RIO.UK) climbed more than 5% on the week following upbeat comments by Chinese leaders about the prospects for the Chinese economy. The miners should prosper in 2013 if the Chinese economy gets back on the growth track and demand for natural resources picks up.
High Life
German stocks climbed 1.5%, hitting a five-year high Thursday. Mixed elsewhere.
E-mail: email@example.com


text:
Forum upgrade is underway! | Check out the latest RPG news!
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Not everything is about Mass Effect Liz!!11!!
Quote from: Starmongoose on November 07, 2013, 04:20:47 PMNot everything is about Mass Effect Liz!!11!!Yes it is.Or Metal Gear.Or FFXIV and being blamed because I'm a dragoon.


text:
Siemens Hazardous Location Touch Safe Contact Block - Reed Switch
- Brand New 1 Left
- Item is brand new Original sealed packaging
List Price $37.96
Please note: BLINQ sells products in multiple conditions (new, open box, refurbished, etc). Not all reviews are reflective of the condition that you may purchase.
No reviews found
- Model
- Features
- Replacement contact block for use with oil and water tight pushbutton units
- 1 NC + 1 NO contact with push-to-toggle on and off cycles
- Gold flashing on contacts for added durability
- Up to 600V, up to 10W power input
- UL Listed for quality assurance
- Description
- This Siemens 52BAR replacement contact block is rated at up to 600V and up to 10W power input, and has gold flashing on the contacts for added durability. It has a normally closed (NC) contact and a normally open (NO) contact with push-to-toggle on and off cycles. This contact block is Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Listed for quality assurance and is suitable for use in oil and water tight pushbutton units in applications such as in a manufacturing process control system.
- 783087093324
- Brand
- Siemens
- Model
- Part
May We Also Suggest
How BLINQ Works
- Retailer needs to move overstock, open box & refurbished inventory.
- BLINQ receives inventory and professionally inspects each item.
- Condition is determined, with only the best items passing inspection.
- Item is heavily discounted on BLINQ.com to sell quickly.


text:
Description of this paper
Four Accounting Problems
Question;P15-3(Incorporation of Component Units) Maynor County officials have concluded that several legally separate entities must be included as component units of its reporting entity in its CAFR. Three of those entities and the funds used to account for them are:Puryear Corner School District General FundGymnasium Construction FundEducational Buildings Improvement FundGymnasium Debt Service FundPayroll Withholding FundFood Services Enterprise FundCentral Printing Services Fund631 632Dalen-Fricke-Maynor Tri-County Airport Authority (Enterprise Fund)Maynor County Public Employee Retirement SystemThe Maynor County board of commissioners also serves as the governing board of the Maynor County public employee retirement system, and the county appoints the voting majority of the board of the airport authority. The school board is elected.RequiredIndicate the reporting entity fund type (if any) in which each of the funds listed previously for the component units of Maynor County should be reported. Explain the reasons for your answer in detail.P16-1(Donation-Related Entries) Mr. Larry Leininger donated $3,000,000 to a nongovernment VHWO on June 17, 20X8.1. Assume that no restrictions are placed on the use of the donated resources.a. Prepare the required June 17, 20X8, entry.b. Prepare any entries necessary in 20X9 if $400,000 of the gift is used to finance VHWO operating expenses.2. Assume that the donation was restricted to research.a. Prepare the required June 17, 20X8, entry.b. Prepare any entries required in 20X9 as a result of spending $400,000 for research during 20X9.3. Assume that the donation was restricted for fixed asset acquisitions.a. Prepare the required June 17, 20X8, entry.b. Prepare any entries required in 20X9 if $400,000 of the gift is used to purchase a new building. The building is placed in service at year end.4. Explain or illustrate how each of the three preceding situations would be reported in the nongovernment VHWOs financial statements in 20X8 and in 20X9.
Paper#38914 | Written in 18-Jul-2015Price : $22


text:
7 agents found
Charles Barnard, Shepton MalletTel: 03339 873702 Local call rate
The highly motivated and vastly experienced staff at Charles Barnard Estate Agents offer you a fresh approach and superior service for your residential property needs. We are dedicated to providing a quality service for all our clients as our people are fundamental to our business and our reputation. We only sell property, no rentals - therefore always committing 100% of our effort and resources on selling property - hopefully your property. We are working hard and focusing our...read more
Cooper & Tanner, Shepton MalletTel: 01749 598015 Local call rate
Our Shepton Mallet office covers the sale and letting of residential property in the town and the surrounding villages. Please call our friendly and professional team on (01749) 372200 to arrange a valuation of your property, we'd be delighted to hear from you. Cooper & Tanner have been handling all aspects of Estate Agency for over 100 years. Whilst that depth of knowledge and expertise is important, it is of course more important to provide the service...read more
DL and SM Dennett, SomersetTel: 01373 597036 Local call rate
Geoffrey Smith Estate Agent Ltd, Shepton MalletTel: 03339 873705 Local call rate
Welcome to Geoffrey Smith Estate Agents Shepton Mallet. With the ever increasing use of modern technology, it is nice to know that some things have not changed!A professional service, well worth having: Experienced trained staff with local knowledge Prominent High Street location Free valuations with no obligation No sale no fee Accompanied viewings with feedback every time Colour property details Local press advertising Independent Financial Advice Opening...read more
Geoffrey Smith Estate Agent Ltd, Shepton MalletTel: 03339 873704 Local call rate
GEOFFREY SMITH the Independent Estate Agent established for nearly 60 years. With the ever increasing use of technology, isn't it nice to know that somethings have not changed!read more
PRIMA LETTINGS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, Shepton MalletTel: 01749 598030 Local call rate
Prima Lettings in Shepton Mallet is an independent Lettings agency, run by Tracey and Tan Hughes an extremely popular and highly regarded couple within the local lettings industry having been landlords since 1989 in Somerset. They take great pride in their cherished reputation where a depth of knowledge and insight demonstrate a full understanding of the needs of Landlord, Tenant and Property.
Simon Heal Estate agents, Shepton MalletBuying: 03339 873706 Local call rateLetting: 03339 873707 Local call rate
Specialists for both the selling and letting of residential properties. Simon Heal is an independent Estate Agent located in the High Street of Shepton Mallet and run by the proprietor. Our friendly team all live locally, and with a combined experience of almost 50 years, offer professional and friendly advice.
Stonebridge , Shepton MalletBuying: 03339 873700 Local call rateLetting: 03339 873701 Local call rate
Stonebridge is a successful, independent estate agent specialising in the sale of town and country homes in the South West of England. We are a dedicated team of friendly professionals providing a proactive, common-sense approach to selling your home - traditional values combined with the benefits of modern technology giving you outstanding service.
- 1


text:
It is hard for fans to see their favorite players change uniforms. The only thing that can make it worse is when their hero says things that are not nice about their former team.
In an interview on Monday former Texas Ranger Josh Hamilton did not exactly throw Rangers fans under the bus, but he was not very complimentary about the community he played in for the last five seasons when he called the fan base spoiled and claimed that the Dallas area was not a true baseball town.
During his interview it sounded as if he might be holding a grudge for the way he was treated the last half of the season in 2012. His production had fallen off, but there were rumors that Hamilton was having trouble dealing with his addcition to chewing tobacco.
That may sound silly to most people, but when you consider the addictive personality of Hamilton it becomes more understandable. Many fans didn't except that as an excuse, and by time the final game rolled around boos were common for the former AL MVP.
His popularity wasn't helped when the perception the media presented was that he did not give the Rangers a chance to match what the Angels offered.
There will be some that will not care about his comments. They'll see them for what they are; the opinion of someone that plays for another team now. With Texas infamous for being a football loving state and the Dallas Cowboys in town there will be some that will say he is right.
On the other hand, there are bound to be many more that will not appreciate being called 'spoiled' and essentially a fair weather fan. They'll see his barbs as further proof of his betrayal even though he prefaced them by saying it wasn't everybody.
When he takes the field in Arlington wearing an Angels uniform for the first time it will not be everybody that boos him.


text:
- Service & Staff
- Date & Time
- Your Details
- Confirm
- Finished
Select a service
Women's Haircut ($60.00)
Haircut with shampoo, blow dry and style. 60 minutes.
Men's Haircut ($45.00)
Haircut includes shampoo, scalp massage, blow dry and style. 45 minutes.
Kid's Haircut ($25.00)
Haircut for kids 12 and under. Shampoo, blow dry and style included. 30 minutes.
Men's Cut Clean Up ($15.00)
Clean up includes shampoo, neckline and side burn trim, blow dry and style.
Bang Trim ($15.00)
Bang trims are complimentary within 6 weeks of a haircut service.
Business Information
Wed9:00am - 5:30pm
Thu11:00am - 8:00pm
Fri9:00am - 5:30pm
Sat8:00am - 3:00pm
|(702) 489-4000
|Get directions
Recent reviews
Amanda is a life saver!!!
Lisa S - Sep 8, 2016
I recently lost my hairdresser and was not looking forward to finding a new one. I contacted Amanda to help me out with a new cut and to get me back to my natural color, which is quite dark. Amanda not only gave me an amazing cut but she improved on my natural hair color. I have gotten a ton a compliments and cannot thank Amanda enough!
Amanda is teriffic!!
J.C. - Jul 29, 2016
About 3 years ago I was shopping for a new hairdresser. After several not so amazing experiences, I found Amanda and was very pleased with her service and skills. She is always professional, personable and makes my hair look fantastic!
I LOVE my new haircut!
KJ Faucheux - Jul 16, 2016
I made an appointment to see Amanda after a friend from work referred me to her. I wanted to get over 10 inches cut off and sport a short hairstyle for the first time in my life. I've got to say, Amanda did not disappoint! I am loving my new cut and have received countless compliments on it as well. Amanda was very professional and delightful to be around. She made me feel comfortable and reminded me I can reach out if I need help styling my new dew. Thanks Amanda!
World Class Cuts
Barton A - Jul 15, 2016
As a performer, actor and businessman, it's really important for me to maintain 'my' look. Amanda took the style that I had when I first met her, and helped evolve it to the personality it has today - the personality that has helped grow my careers. While I may not see her often, she always brings it back to the exact look that I and my audience expects. She is the only one that I'll let cut or style my hair - she has earned that right.
Best stylist!
Angie G - Jul 8, 2016
Amanda really cares and listens to her clients. I always feel like she will do whatever she can to make me look good and feel good when I see her. I can be very indecisive and Amanda will make recommendations that I always end up loving.