text:
Join Now
Member Log in
Follow TradersCity
TradersCity Twitter
TradersCity Facebook
Trade Leads
Suppliers wanted
Agents wanted
Joint Ventures
Submit Quick Buy/Import Lead
Trade Services
B2B Directories
Products Category
Members Directory
Business Cards
Products Photos
B2B Videos
Country Targeted Leads
Trade Connections
B2B Marketplace Chat
Weekly Newsletter
Free Trade Alerts
Free B2B Magazines
Free B2B Magazines:
Weekly Trade News
Search Data
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Copyright Infringement Information (DMCA)
Contact TradersCity
Hello visitor from
visiting from
45 China
4 France
1 India
1 Slovenia
This Month's Highlights:
(China): Print Labels, Stickers, Tags, Epoxy Resin Stickers
(China): Shipping Rates From China, Air Freight Rate From China, Ocean Freight Quote, Shipping Cost, Shipping Price, Freight Quote
Switching Power 100w 300w
Posted at: Offers to Sell and Export | Posted on: Fri 17 Jul, 2009 9:53 am |
Switching Power 100w Photos Catalog
Switching Power 100w 300w
Product Category
Switching Power 100w
Photos Catalog
Switching Power 100w
Business Cards
Switching Power 100w
Members Directory
Switching Power 100w
Switching Power 100w
email alerts
Offers to Sell and Export
Free Business Magazines
Product Description
Features Switching-mode power supply Open frame type
Multiple output Auto ranging
universal input 100% burn in for 24h Overload, short circuit protection
RoHS compliance Energy standard: Unload power < 0.5W
Application Digital TV Set-Top Box(STB)
Network hubs Industrial computer application
Mobile Computing Control equipments
Microprocessor systems Portable equipment
Specifications At 25º C ambient temperature
Input Specification Input voltages: 100-240 VAC
Input frequency: 47-63 Hz Input current: 1.5A Max.
Hold-up time, nom. Conditions: 20ms@VAC
Inrush current: <30A/240V Output Specifications
Total Regulation: ± 5% Recovery time: ± 2% max. 1 ms Ripple and noise: <1% max. GeneralSpecifications Operating temperature: 0º C--+40º C Storage temperature: -20º C---+85º C Dielectric Withstand (Hipot): 3000VAC 1min inp. <->outp.
Model: SR --300W
Standard: 100W 150W 200W 300W
Productivity: 100k/ month
Unit Price/Payment: USD. 00
Trademark: Sinrace
Min. Order: 500pcs
Company Contact:
Contact Name: Emily
Company Name: Sinrace Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd
Tel: 86 755 29665062
Fax: 86 755 82732197
Street Address: Building A/b The 3rd
Industrial Area, Tangtou Village,
Shiyan Town, Baoan District,
Shenzhen, China 518000
Member name: sinrace
Member Since: 17 July 2009
Total Leads:
65 sinrace Import Export Business Leads
Business focus: Power Supply, Power Adapter, Switching Power Supply
Safe Import Export Tips
Similar Suppliers And Manufacturers Import Export Trade Leads
100w Enclosed Switching Power Supply
- By powerld - On Tue 14 Aug, 2007 1:33 am: power desity high efficiency long life and high reliability 100% high-pot tested 100% cycling burn-in input frequency 47 to 63hz inrush current ....
12v25a 300w Switching Power Supply
- By HKVSTARInternational - On Thu 19 Apr, 2012 9:10 am: switching power supply efficiency 88% min mini size and use of convenience mtbf amp gt 50000h stable performance high efficiency operat....
12v25a 300w Switching Power Supply
- By GoldlisterElectronic - On Tue 24 Apr, 2012 2:25 am: switching power supply hits description brand lst dimensions 215*110*50mm model lst-t300u12-a weight 1 10kg configuration ....
Mean Well 100w 8.5a 12v Single Output Drivers Switching Led Power Supply Lpv-100-12 Ip67 Waterproof
- By Lichenying - On Wed 17 Apr, 2013 7:48 am: switching led power supply lpv-100-12 ip67 waterproof led transformers by lichenying
300w 30v Cosel-lda300w-30 Ac Dc Switching Power Supply
- By besternasia - On Fri 04 May, 2012 8:50 am: switching power supply model number lda300w-30 many thanks to give us a chance to quote you
300w Switching Power Supply High Quality Enclosed
- By powerld - On Tue 14 Aug, 2007 1:38 am: 300w switching power supply high quality enclosed ul ce approval high efficiency universal input low output ripple and noise short-circuit protection over current protection over voltage ....oit
6v1000ma Gs Certification Switching Power Supplies, External Switching Power Supply
- By ShenzhenJiaHong - On Wed 08 Aug, 2012 6:22 am: power 4 8w dc output voltage range 3v-24v dc amp #12288 dc output current range 0 2a-1a feature constant voltage constant current short circuit....
Gs Certification Switching Power Supplies, External Switching Power Supply
- By ShenzhenJiaHong - On Fri 10 Aug, 2012 3:32 am: switching power supply 4 shell material amp #65306 pc+abs 5 power bracket 1va-5va 6 efficiency 82% 7 mini size and use of convenience amp #65307 s....
Import Export Startup Stories
Share Your Story & Get Listed
at StartImportExport.com
Jinhua Sunrise Electronic Co Ltd
: Andy Peng Of Jinhua Sunrise Electronic From China
Guangzhou Kinggreat Trading Ltd
: Emma Lee Of Guangzhou Kinggreat Trading An Electronic Products And Accessories Supplier From China
Qingdao Saint-kin Wind Turbine Co Ltd
: Sianna Of Qingdao Saintkin Wind Turbine From China
Esperantop Holding Company Limited
: William Of Esperantop Holding Producing High Volume Short Lead Time Consumer Goods From China
EDI-LED Electronics Co Ltd
: Sunny Ye Of EDI-LED Electronics, A Manufacturer Of Led Lighting From China
TradersCity.com shall not be held liable for any user posted/submitted content including but not limited to trade leads, profiles, images, and any other data. TradersCity.com does not and did not verify any of users posted/submitted data nor is implicitly or explicitly recommending these business offers. TradersCity does not verify truthfulness, accuracy, completeness, nor legality of any businesses, services, and leads posted here. TradersCity does not represent Sellers or Buyers in any transaction between users of the website and is unable to make any opinion in regard to their performance in any transaction. TradersCity neither guarantees nor undertakes in any dispute between sellers and buyers. Protect your business from fraud by
trading safely


text:
2 Definitions of Diallel
The definition of diallel, the meaning of the word Diallel:
Is diallel a scrabble word? Yes!
- n. - (in genetic research, particularly into the genetics of plants) a scheme of cross-breeding within a select group of parents, designed to produce various hybrids with different genetic properties
- v. - (of lines) not parallel, meeting or intersecting
Diallel is worth 8 points in Scrabble, and 11 points in Words with Friends
There are 7 letters in diallel: A D E I L L L
50 words found using the letters in "Diallel"
6 Letter Words
5 Letter Words
4 Letter Words
3 Letter Words
2 Letter Words
Sign up for our Free Scrabble Words newsletter. We won't send you spam or share your email address with anyone. We Promise.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
About Halton District School Board
HDSB was looking for an AT solution that could work seamlessly in a GAFE environment
HDSB observes improved selfesteem, confidence, independence, and literacy skills for struggling students after adopting Texthelp's Read&Write for Google Chrome. The recent board-wide release of Read&Write has further increased success for all students: "What is necessary for some is good for all."
Award-winning literacy support software that's used by millions of students and adults worldwide.
Websites made more accessible with easy speech, reading and translation tools.
The reading assessment tool that helps busy teachers support struggling readers & English Language Learners.
Providing publishers and platform providers with customizable literacy and language support solutions.
See Professional Solutions for more information about our custom reading, writing and fluency support technologies.


text:
A large majority of consumers say they'll pay more for an environmentally friendly product and stay loyal to a product for a good cause, so how are retailers harnessing that? Home Depot sells merchandise that people need, while Target offers side-by-side comparisons and Office Depot finds out why its customers want to make green purchases.
Full Story:GreenBiz.com


text: Hello friends I need help in the subject of the emulator of snes. I saw in the forum that in order to install the emulator needs several softwares Bpalpon I have no idea what they =\ I have version 1.1.2 cracked. I try to install will be castrated zodttd.com ) in the exact words ( I press add add will be castrated zodttd.com press ok this makes refresh this end but am not additional me any category, and he appear me Bsorsim these did not register right Now what I need to do? There is which that she is a software that needs to install before? This is worker on 1.1.2? *I from Israel and I do not know to write really people then on account of this I have ardours of spelling. Regrets = / thank you for all the helpful


text:
Edit your search:(X) New Carlisle, IN
Yes (amount not posted) Draw against commission At least $10,000 At least $20,000 At least $40,000 At least $60,000 At least $80,000 At least $100,000
- Advertising Sales Jobs
- Automotive Sales Jobs
- Communications Sales Jobs
- Computer Sales Jobs
- Engineering Sales Jobs
- Entertainment Sales Jobs
- Financial Sales Jobs
- Food and Beverage Sales Jobs
- Healthcare Sales Jobs
- Industrial Sales Jobs
- Information Management Sales Jobs
- Insurance Sales Jobs
- Internet Sales Jobs
- Manufacturing Sales Jobs
- Media Sales Jobs
- Medical Sales Jobs
- Merchandise Sales Jobs
- Office Automation Sales Jobs
- Pharmaceutical Sales Jobs
- Printing Sales Jobs
- Professional Services Sales Jobs
- Publication Sales Jobs
- Real Estate Sales Jobs
- Retail Sales Sales Jobs
- Sales Recruter Sales Jobs
- Sales Trainer Sales Jobs
- Security Sales Jobs
- Software Sales Jobs
- Technical Sales Jobs
- Tele Equipment Sales Jobs
- Travel Sales Jobs
Sales Jobs in New Carlisle, IN
New Carlisle Sales Jobs in Indiana
Now Viewing 1-10 of 28 Jobs (Next 10)
Sort By:
Mery is Hosting a SEARS NATIONWIDE 2016 FALL ONLINE RESUM ...
Sears Home Improvement - New Carlisle, IN
MAKE THE RIGHT CALL JOIN US FOR OUR SEARS NATIONWIDE 2016 FALL ONLINE RESUME EXCHANGE FAIR Sept 26 thru Oct 26 Send Mery your resume and I will send you the application link- If you apply I can set your interview up within 2 days. Entrepreneur ...
Posted: 2016-10-17 | Industry: Insurance | Base Salary: 100% commission
Midwest Regional Sales Representative
NewHire - New Carlisle, IN
REGIONAL SALES REPRESENTATIVE Midwest territory opportunity for a top producer. You want to sell reliable equipment that customers love, and you want to work for a fast growing equipment manufacturer. As a Regional Sales Manager, you are responsible to grow the existing territory into a multi-mil ...
Posted: 2016-11-22 | Industry: Industrial | Base Salary: Yes (amount not posted)
Part-time Rental Sales Associate - Job Fair 8/31!
Avis Budget Group - New Carlisle, IN
JOB FAIR! WALK-INS WELCOME! 4643 Progress Drive, South Bend, IN 46628 Wednesday, Aug 31st 2016 10:00am to 5:00pm Complete the online application below to get your head start! Avis Budget Group is an action-packed, high-energy workplace where things move forward everyday. We are a global leader i ...
Posted: 2016-11-26 | Industry: Travel | Base Salary: At least $20,000
Customer Business Director
Honeywell - New Carlisle, IN
Located in the United States and reporting to the VP Airlines, this position is responsible for managing a portfolio of complex accounts representing $100M+ per year, within the Commercial Airline aftermarket business. These accounts may be located in multiple countries and across a diverse cultu ...
Posted: 2016-10-26 | Industry: Industrial | Base Salary: Yes (amount not posted)
Senior Sales Professionals
BEE Window - New Carlisle, IN
Senior Sales Professionals - Base Pay Plus Commission! 34 year old home improvement company expands statewide! If you are a sales professional looking for a long-term career in a stable, recession-proof industry, we have the opportunity for you! We provide you with daily pre-set, pre-qualifie ...
Posted: 2016-12-10 | Industry: Retail Sales | Base Salary: Yes (amount not posted)
14K+ per month - Work at Home - Financial Services
WealthWave / Virtual Financial - South Bend, IN
We are the new virtual division of one the largest marketing organizations in the lucrative financial services industry because we have a SYSTEM that works for those who work the system. This a realistic 6 figure income opportunity for a highly motivated individual who is willing to put in the ...
Posted: 2016-12-10 | Industry: Insurance | Base Salary: 100% commission
Business Development Represenative - Lead Generation
Wheelhouse Enterprises - South Bend, IN
Business Development Representative Who is Wheelhouse looking for? We are seeking high energy, top performers that are driven by the desire to make money! The Business Development Representative (BDR) is responsible for transitioning customer interests into qualified leads for world class B2B t ...
Posted: 2016-12-09 | Industry: Work from Home | Base Salary: At least $20,000
Business Development Represenative - Lead Generation
Wheelhouse Enterprises - South Bend, IN
Business Development Representative Who is Wheelhouse looking for? We are seeking high energy, top performers that are driven by the desire to make money! The Business Development Representative (BDR) is responsible for transitioning customer interests into qualified leads for world class B2B t ...
Posted: 2016-12-10 | Industry: Internet | Base Salary: At least $20,000
Sales Marketing Specialist
Career Women Online - South Bend, IN
Work Online Sales From HOME! Are you passionate about wellness and success oriented? Womens Dream Team is in the business of helping people. We help families use products that are safe, natural and eco-friendly. We help families achieve financial wellness and become debt free while they spend m ...
Posted: 2016-12-09 | Industry: Sales Recruiter | Base Salary: At least $40,000
Sales Representative
NewHire - South Bend, IN
Ziker Cleaners seeks an energetic and creative Sales Representative to join our team. This position is an excellent opportunity for professional growth with one of the premier dry cleaning companies in the country. You will travel to different neighborhoods and suburbs going door-to-door with the ...
Posted: 2016-12-06 | Industry: Manufacturing | Base Salary: At least $20,000


text:
Atlanta Falcons 100D Polyester Flag 3X5FT flag banner - FREE SHIPPING
Atlanta Falcons 100D Polyester Flag 3X5FT flag banner - FREE SHIPPING
Fabric: Outlast
Style: Flying
Usage: National Flag
Flags & Banners Material: Polyester
Type: Printed
Flagpole Material: Other
Additional Information
All of our store items fall under one of two categories:
1. Free Shipping
Avoid paying unfair shipping fees! We will ship these items to you free of charge. You only pay the item cost and we handle the rest.
2. Free Promo Items
In order to attract new customers we have several free promo items where you only have to pay the shipping cost. Shipping is calculated automatically, and per item.
Due to high demand our processing time can take up to 5 business days.
Thank you for understanding!


text:
DIY Home Improvement, Remodeling & Repair Forum
> vBulletin Message
Go to Page...
vBulletin Message
Invalid Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the
Newest Threads
Gas Control Valve
What problems do you encounter placing a bid or completing a project?
New shop and winter
Basement Ventilation
One Word Game: volume 3
How to plug in a Philips Low Pressure Sodium Bulb using a Ballast
Hello from San Angelo, Texas!
Thermostat clicks but nothing happens
Pool timer
Wood in contact with soil - moisture barrier?
What can you tell me about on-demand gas water heaters?
Wiring an "override" thermostat
Bath Fan Duct
can't stop the heat
Whirlpool Dryer Not Turning On, Door Switch Suspect?


text:
Precision Private Wealth is financial planning firm which specialises in assisting property investors take a holistic approach to managing their greater financial picture, through providing advice for superannuation, SMSF and insurance requirements.
Do any of you concentrate on only 1 or 2 Suburbs?
Discussion in 'Where to Buy' started by Darlinghurst Boy, 29th Jul, 2015.
Page 1 of 3
Page 1 of 3


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 7, 1983
MARTIN ICE CREAM CO., Plaintiff,
CHIPWICH, INC., and PREMIUM PRODUCTS SALES CORPORATION, Defendants
Goettel, D.J.
Plaintiff Martin Ice Cream Co. ("Martin"), a distributor of ice cream products, brings suit against defendant Chipwich, Inc. ("Chipwich"), the primary manufacturer of the chocolate-chip-cookie-ice-cream-sandwich known as the Chipwich (hereinafter designated the "C-wich" to distinguish it from its manufacturer), and defendant Premium Products Sales Corporation ("Premium"), Chipwich's former exclusive sales agent, for allegedly illegally preventing Martin from continuing as the exclusive distributor of C-wiches to all Pathmark and Shoprite supermarkets located in the New York Metropolitan area. In this action, Martin raises eight claims: five under the federal antitrust provisions of the Sherman and Robinson-Patman Acts, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, & 13 (1976), one for breach of contract, and two for tortious interference with contractual relations.
At this juncture in this relatively young suit, defendant Premium has moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6), and defendant Chipwich has moved to dismiss on the pleadings, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). In considering these motions, however, the Court has, except with respect to the claim of tortious interference with contractual relations, relied upon not only the pleadings but also affidavits and exhibits submitted by all of the parties. Accordingly, the Court has treated both motions, pursuant to Rules 12(b) (6) and 12(c), respectively, as motions for summary judgment.
Consequently, the movants must meet the difficult burdens imposed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. They must "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact" and that they are "entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The Court may determine only whether issues of fact exist; it may not pass any judgment on the quality of the proof by trying such factual issues. See, e.g., Wilson-Rich v. Don Aux Associates, Inc., 524 F. Supp. 1226, 1229 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). Moreover, it must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion, Quinn v. Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corp., 613 F.2d 438, 445 (2d Cir. 1980), which in this case is Martin. In addition, summary disposition of antitrust claims is generally considered to be undesirable. See, e.g., Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 473, 7 L. Ed. 2d 458, 82 S. Ct. 486 (1961) ("Summary procedures should be used sparingly in complex antitrust litigation where motive and intent play leading roles, the proof is largely in the hands of the alleged conspirators, and hostile witnesses thicken the plot"). Finally, where there has been almost no discovery, as is the case here, courts have held that, even if summary judgment might be granted, the better course is to deny the motion without prejudice to renewing it after further discovery is completed. 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2728, at 558 (1973).
Considering the defendants' motions under these stringent standards, the Court has concluded that, for reasons given below, the motions must be denied with respect to all but the claim of tortious interference with Martin's contractual relations, which is dismissed with leave to amend the complaint. However, in the interests of fairness to the defendants and expeditious litigation of the case, the denial of these motions with respect to the other seven claims is made without prejudice to the defendants' right to renew the motions upon the completion of further discovery.
The raison d'etre of this case is the C-wich. Created by Richard La Motta, a primary founder of Chipwich, the C-wich has become a trademarked, mass-produced, commercial success of the first order. The primary corporations behind the development of this commercial success have been Chipwich and Premium. The former is the manufacturer of the C-wich, while the latter is a small, supposedly expert sales and marketing firm, which contracted to provide Chipwich with the marketing and sales mechanism that it needed to reach a large market. While the complete interrelationship of Chipwich and Premium and their officers and shareholders has not been fully detailed in the affidavits, the submissions to date do reveal at least the broad outlines of what appears to be a somewhat complex interlocking of organizations. At the minimum, the following contractual relations appear to have been created:
1. On January 16, 1981, Chipwich signed a consulting agreement with Bruce Nevins, one of the principals of Premium and an original, major stockholder in Chipwich, by which Nevins was to receive $2,000 per month for two years for performing at least one day per month of consulting services;
2. A few weeks later, Chipwich signed a similar consulting agreement with Jim Stevens, the other principal of Premium and another original, major stockholder in Chipwich;
3. On March 27, 1981,
Chipwich signed a contract with Premium, by which Premium agreed to be the exclusive sales and marketing agent for the C-wich and Chipwich agreed to pay 14% of the gross sales orders taken by Premium;
4. On May 12, 1981, Chipwich and Premium entered an agreement under which Mr. Stevens became the acting president and chief operating officer of Chipwich.
All of these relationships existed during the period relevant to this action but were terminated at the insistence of Chipwich on March 5, 1982.
When the C-wich was first introduced to the public in May of 1981, it was sold only from ice cream carts. However, it took little time for Chipwich and Premium to realize that the public demand for the C-wich would be almost insatiable. Ever since, Chipwich has been trying, at first with the help of Premium and later with the assistance of other firms, to create a marketing and sales mechanism to meet the extraordinary demand for C-wiches.
To that end, Chipwich and Premium began negotiations with Haagen Dazs Ice Cream, Inc. ("Haagen Dazs"),
to obtain the benefit of its distribution network. An agreement seems to have been reached by early November 1981, under which Haagen Dazs became, with certain exceptions, the exclusive distributor of C-wiches in the New York Metropolitan area. For purposes of this action, the key exception to this exclusive arrangement was that retail outlets, primarily supermarkets, that were not directly serviced by Haagen Dazs would be serviced by Haagen Dazs's three surrogate ice cream distributors, namely: Priscilla Ice Cream Company ("Priscilla"), LaSalle Ice Cream Company ("LaSalle"), and Martin.
Thus, the plaintiff alleges that Haagen Dazs, Martin, Priscilla, and LaSalle, who together are referred to as "the Haagen Dazs distribution network," were to be the exclusive distributors of C-wiches to all shopping markets in the New York Metropolitan area.
More specifically, Martin claims that early in November of 1981 principals of Chipwich met with representatives of Martin, Priscilla, and LaSalle and struck an oral agreement with regard to the new distribution system. By that agreement,
Martin alleges, the three distributors were made the exclusive distributors to all institutions not covered by Haagen Dazs, and Martin, in particular, was designated the authorized distributor to four supermarket chains: Pathmark, Shoprite, Foodtown, and Acme. The agreement called for Martin and the other two distributors to buy C-wich "multipacks" from Chipwich at $8.52 per "shipping unit" and to sell them to retailers at the suggested wholesale price of $11.15 per "shipping unit."
Chipwich disputes the nature of whatever agreement, if any, that it may have made with Martin at the early November meeting.
Most critically, Chipwich denies that it merely "desired" Martin to make "store-door" deliveries; rather, Chipwich contends that it "demanded" such deliveries and prohibited the delivery of C-wiches to any chain's warehouse distribution center.
In effect, Chipwich is claiming that a material term of the agreement was that only store-door deliveries be made, while Martin denies that such was a term of the agreement.
Pursuant to the alleged agreement, Martin began within two or three weeks to contact its "designated" supermarket chains and to make sales to them. It made only warehouse deliveries, however, to Pathmark because that company refused to take deliveries at its individual stores. Martin alleges that it made these deliveries, knowing that Chipwich preferred store-door deliveries only because Martin hoped thereby to persuade Pathmark to accept at a later time what Chipwich wanted. To the other three supermarket chains, Martin apparently did make store-door deliveries. While it sold to the latter three chains at Chipwich's suggested wholesale price of $11.15 per unit, it sold to Pathmark at a discount price of $10.00 per unit.
According to Martin, when the defendants learned of its successful discount sales to Pathmark's warehouse, they chose to punish Martin, increase their own profit margins, and discourage the other distributors from discounting by taking the sudden and unannounced step of making direct sales to Pathmark. In addition, once they learned that such sales could also be made to Shoprite, the defendants began selling directly to Shoprite's new warehouse distribution system. This latter step was allegedly taken despite the fact that Martin had been making store-door deliveries to Shoprite, as Chipwich had requested.
Since the beginning of 1982, Martin has made sales only to Foodtown and Acme. Pathmark and Shoprite apparently have had an economic incentive to buy directly from Chipwich because the manufacturer sold to those two chains at a price of $9.27 per unit. This price, which was $.73 less than Martin's discount price, was considerably lower than what Martin could afford to offer the chains.
On the basis of these facts and others, which are described when necessary later in the opinion, Martin has alleged the following causes of action:
1. that by making direct sales to the two chains Chipwich breached its exclusive distribution agreement with Martin;
2. that Chipwich and Premium conspired to unreasonably restrain trade by, inter alia, establishing a resale price maintenance scheme and thereby violated section 1 of the Sherman Act;
3. that either Chipwich by itself or Chipwich and Premium in concert attempted to monopolize trade in C-wiches and thereby violated section 2 of the Sherman Act;
4. that Chipwich sold its products to Premium at prices lower than those offered to Martin and thereby violated section 2 of the Robinson-Patman Act by engaging in price discrimination;
5. that Chipwich and Premium tortiously interfered with Martin's contractual relations with Pathmark and Shoprite; and
6. that Chipwich and Premium tortiously interfered with the economic advantage that Martin had developed with its Pathmark and Shoprite accounts.
Each of these claims is considered at length in the discussion that follows.
A. Breach of Contract Claim
The essence of this claim is that Chipwich entered into an exclusive distributorship agreement with Martin by which it was to distribute C-wich multipacks to all Pathmark, Shoprite, Foodtown, and Acme stores in the New York Metropolitan area, and that Chipwich breached the agreement by initiating direct sales to Pathmark and Shoprite at prices below those that Martin could afford to match. In response, Chipwich moves for a dismissal of this claim on four separate grounds, namely: (1) that Martin has failed to claim an exclusive right to sell to Pathmark and Shoprite; (2) that Martin has failed to claim a right to make warehouse deliveries, as opposed to store-door deliveries; (3) that, because there was no written contract, any agreement that was entered into must have been an "at will" agreement, at best, which could have been terminated at any time by either party; and (4) that any contract that Martin may believe was created was, in fact, merely illusory because there was no mutuality of promises between the parties.
Having carefully considered each of these grounds, the Court must conclude that none of them is sufficient to grant the defendant's motion at this stage in the proceedings. With regard to the first ground, Chipwich is simply not correct in saying that Martin has failed to allege an exclusive right to sell to Pathmark and Shoprite. The plaintiff first alleges that Priscilla, LaSalle, and Martin were appointed the exclusive distributors of C-wich multipacks in the New York Metropolitan area, and then claims that Martin was designated and authorized to introduce and sell multipacks to four specific chains: Pathmark, Shoprite, Foodtown, and Acme. Complaint paras. 14 & 15. Certainly these allegations and others made at other points in the complaint adequately inform Chipwich that Martin is claiming an exclusive right to sell C-wich multipacks to all of the four named supermarket chains. Whether it will be able to prove such an exclusive right is another matter, requiring an evidentiary hearing.
With regard to the second ground, the Court finds that implied in Martin's general claim of an exclusive distributorship is the specific right to make warehouse deliveries. Although it is true that Martin nowhere expressly claims that it was given the specific right to make warehouse deliveries,
it is also true that Martin at no point admits that it was prohibited from making such deliveries. If the Court is to assume, as it must for the purposes of this motion, that Martin was granted an unlimited exclusive distributorship, then we cannot, in the absence of additional evidence, conclude that this general right was qualified by a reservation by Chipwich that Martin could make only store-door deliveries.
Finally, with regard to the third and fourth grounds, the Court finds that genuine issues of material fact as to the precise nature of the agreement preclude any determination of whether it was either an "at will" agreement or an illusory contract which lacked mutuality of promises. Faced with an oral agreement, every aspect of which appears to be in dispute, this Court is hardly in a position to divine the terms of the agreement or the intent of the parties, and must refuse, therefore, to decide the legal issues Chipwich raises in these final two grounds. It is impossible, for example, for the Court to determine whether there was mutuality of promises when what each party promised remains at issue.
Therefore, the Court must deny Chipwich's motion with respect to the claim of breach of contract.
B. Two Claims of a Conspiracy to Restrain Trade
Defendants Chipwich and Premium argue that Martin's two claims of violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (1976), should be dismissed for any one of three reasons. Specifically, the defendants contend that Martin has failed to allege: (1) a combination or conspiracy within the meaning of the Sherman Act; (2) any instance of undue restraint of trade; and (3) any antitrust injury. While the Court concurs with the defendants that each of these elements must be proven if Martin is to prevail, see, e.g., WIXT Television, Inc. v. Meredith Corp., 506 F. Supp. 1003, 1014 (N.D.N.Y. 1980), it cannot agree that the elements are insufficiently pled or that Martin has failed to raise a genuine issue of fact as to any of them.
1. The Conspiracy. The primary conspiracy alleged by Martin is that between Chipwich and Premium.
Martin has alleged that the two defendants conspired to maintain wholesale and retail prices by coercing Martin and the other distributors to sell only at the "suggested" price of $11.15 per unit. According to Martin, the direct sales made by Chipwich and Premium to Pathmark and Shoprite were undertaken to punish Martin for offering a discount price to Pathmark and to discourage the other distributors from making similar discount sales. Further, Martin alleges that Premium was a distributor who, by buying from Chipwich and selling to the supermarkets, was in competition with Martin.
In response, Chipwich and Premium argue that the only relationship between themselves was that of principal and agent: Premium, as the exclusive sales agent of Chipwich, merely played the same role that the marketing division of a larger company would have played. Premium denies that it ever bought or sold C-wiches and claims that it merely made a commission on whatever Chipwich sold to distributors or retailers. The defendants conclude on the basis of these facts that, under the doctrine most recently enunciated in Fuchs Sugars & Syrups, Inc. v. Amstar Corp., 602 F.2d 1025, 1031-33 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 917, 62 L. Ed. 2d 172, 100 S. Ct. 232 (1979), they were incapable of conspiring within the meaning of the Sherman Act because they did not constitute two distinct economic entities for antitrust purposes.
Unfortunately, the defendants' reliance upon Fuchs, particularly at this early stage of the litigation, is misplaced. In Fuchs, the defendant manufacturer of sugar unilaterally decided to substitute an in-house brokerage system for the existing array of independent general brokers upon whom it had relied for marketing its products. Two of the fifteen original general brokers refused to sign voluntary termination agreements and brought a suit for violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. They alleged that between Amstar and two of the other original brokers, who not only signed the termination agreements but also accepted an offer from Amstar to become its in-house brokers, there had been a conspiracy to restrain trade. The Court of Appeals held that the district court had been correct in its conclusion, reached at the end of a three week trial, that there could not have been a conspiracy between Amstar and the two brokers because they were, in effect, a single economic entity. Id. at 1031. However, in reaching that decision, the Second Circuit expressly relied upon several facts inconsistent with those in the instant case, including: (1) the fact that the brokers took no part in the decision to change the distribution system; (2) the fact that only the manufacturer determined the prices; (3) the fact that the two brokers served no other function than to supply the manufacturer with customers; and (4) the absence of any claim of resale price maintenance. Id. at 1031-34 & n.5. In contrast, we find in both the complaint and the affidavits of the instant case the suggestion that Chipwich and Premium jointly made the decision to sell directly to Pathmark and Shoprite and that the defendants jointly determined the "suggested" wholesale and retail prices. Furthermore, the very core of Martin's section 1 claim is that the two defendants were establishing a price maintenance scheme. Nor is it unforeseeable that further discovery could reveal that Premium performed for Chipwich several functions other than supplying the manufacturer with customers.
More generally, the defendants have not established that they were a single economic entity for antitrust purposes. Although there was, at the time in question, some overlap in the control and ownership of the two corporations, they seem to have been two separate economic entities, serving different customers and different commercial purposes. They do not appear to have embodied, as the defendants suggest, the type of relationship involved in, for example, Harvey v. Fearless Farris Wholesale, Inc., 589 F.2d 451, 455-58 (9th Cir. 1979), where one individual was the sole owner of several corporate defendants and exercised such control over them that the corporations could not be considered separate economic entities for purposes of determining whether they were coconspirators under the Sherman Act.
Although a full evidentiary hearing may eventually reveal little more than the simple agency relationship that the defendants presently claim, the plaintiff has already presented facts sufficient to suggest the possibility of a much more complex relationship. Faced with a material issue of fact as to the exact nature of the ties between the defendants, the Court cannot at this juncture determine the legal issue that they have raised here.
2. Unreasonable Restraint of Trade. The critical illegal restraint of trade alleged by Martin is a resale price maintenance scheme under which the distributors were allegedly told to sell to the supermarkets at the suggested price of $11.15.
In Butera v. Sun Oil Co., Inc., 496 F.2d 434 (1st Cir. 1974), the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit articulated the elements of an illegal scheme of resale price maintenance, since adopted by other circuits, by holding:
[A] case of illegal resale price maintenance is made out when a price is announced and some course of action is undertaken or threatened contingent on the willingness or unwillingness of the retailer to adopt the price. The action need not necessarily fit under the rubric 'coercion', but it must involve making a meaningful event depend on compliance or non-compliance with the 'suggested' or stated price.
Id. at 437 (footnotes omitted); see also Carlson Machine Tools, Inc. v. American Tool, Inc., 678 F.2d 1253, 1261 (5th Cir. 1982); Yentsch v. Texaco, Inc., 630 F.2d 46, 53 (2d Cir. 1980) (plaintiff must prove either an agreement to maintain prices or "the securing of actual adherence to prices by means beyond mere refusal to deal").
In this case, although Martin has not specifically alleged each of these elements, its complaint and affidavits together make a sufficiently strong showing to raise a genuine issue of fact as to the presence of each of them. The submissions suggest that Chipwich and Premium communicated to both wholesalers and retailers what the suggested or recommended prices were to be at every level of the distribution system. In addition, the complaint contains the allegation that Chipwich's sudden and apparently unannounced shift to direct sales to Pathmark and Shoprite was instituted to punish Martin for discount sales and to discourage the other distributors from making similar sales. Concededly, the complaint contains no allegation that the critical "coercive" event in question -- the implementation of direct sales and effective "termination" of Martin as a distributor to Pathmark and Shoprite -- was made with Martin's knowledge that the "coercion" depended upon Martin's failure to adhere to the suggested prices. However, such a dependency can reasonably be inferred from the alleged facts. Furthermore, at this early stage in the discovery process, it would be rather difficult for Martin to have shown that the other distributors knew what happened to Martin or were threatened with similar action if they made warehouse deliveries or sold at discount rates. Certainly, the inference of their knowledge of the event and of their subsequent adherence to the suggested prices can reasonably be drawn from Martin's allegations.
3. Antitrust Injury. Chipwich's and Premium's contention that no antitrust injury to competition is alleged fails to address the significance of Martin's factual allegations of a price maintenance scheme. Even if resale price maintenance were not a per se violation of the antitrust laws, see, e.g., California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97, 102, 63 L. Ed. 2d 233, 100 S. Ct. 937 (1980); Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U.S. 145, 151-52, 19 L. Ed. 2d 998, 88 S. Ct. 869 (1968), a reasonable inference of anticompetitive effect could be made from Martin's allegations, and the plaintiff, therefore, would have to be given an opportunity to develop facts that might prove such an effect. The defendants' reliance upon Jarmatt Truck Leasing Corp. v. Brooklyn Pie Co., 525 F. Supp. 749, 750 (E.D.N.Y. 1981) (dismissal for failure "to allege facts showing injury to competition as distinct from injury to a competitor ") is misplaced, for in Jarmatt the sole allegation relevant to a possible antitrust injury was that the defendant-manufacturer substituted another company for the plaintiff-distributor. Id. at 750. Here, not only has the manufacturer substituted itself for Martin in the role of distributing C-wiches to Pathmark and Shoprite, but also it has allegedly done so in furtherance of a scheme to maintain prices at an artificially high level. Other cases cited by the defendants are similarly inapposite to the case at hand. See, e.g., Speed Auto Sales, Inc. v. American Motors Corp., 477 F. Supp. 1193, 1196 (E.D.N.Y. 1979) (dismissal of claim based on failure to allege conspiracy, exclusive dealership, or injury); Neugebauer v. A.S. Abell Co., 474 F. Supp. 1053, 1067-69 (D. Md. 1979) (failure to prove injury at the trial, not a case involving summary disposition); Diehl & Sons, Inc. v. International Harvester Co., 426 F. Supp. 110, 119 (E.D.N.Y. 1976) (summary judgment granted defendant, after completion of exhaustive discovery by both parties, where no more was shown than that one of twenty-four dealers in the geographic market was terminated by the manufacturer).
In conclusion, the defendants have failed to demonstrate that Martin cannot prove a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. Although the complaint is not as clear as it could be and the task the plaintiff has set for itself, if it is to prove what it alleges, may in the end prove too difficult for it to succeed, it is not for this Court at this time to go beyond the bare essentials of the pleadings and other submissions to decide whether the plaintiff has in fact, proven what it has alleged. The defendants' motions with respect to Martin's section 1 claims, therefore, are denied.
C. Claims of Conspiracy and Attempt to Monopolize Trade
Martin claims that either Chipwich by itself or Chipwich and Premium in concert attempted to monopolize the distribution of C-wiches in the New York Metropolitan area, thereby violating section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 (1976). In response, Chipwich and Premium argue that they could not possibly have monopolized the relevant product market, which they contend is comprised of either all ice cream novelties, at its broadest, or all ice cream sandwiches, at its narrowest. They suggest that the Court take judicial notice of the fact that the market is as they define it and dismiss the two section 2 claims.
In addition, they argue that one product cannot possibly constitute a relevant product market. Martin opposes the defendants' motions by arguing that the C-wich alone constitutes the relevant product market and that the case law supports the proposition that the product market can consist of only one product.
The Court, therefore, is faced with a colorable issue of material fact: what is the relevant product market in which the C-wich competes? The defendants do refer the Court to cases which have held that one product or another could not by itself constitute the relevant product market. See, e.g., Edward J. Sweeney & Sons, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc., 478 F. Supp. 243, 271 n.57 (E.D. Pa. 1979) (Texaco brand gasoline held not to be a relevant product market), aff'd, 637 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911, 68 L. Ed. 2d 300, 101 S. Ct. 1981 (1981); Mogul v. General Motors Corp., 391 F. Supp. 1305, 1313 (E.D. Pa. 1975) ("the relevant product market cannot be limited to Cadillac"), aff'd, 527 F.2d 645 (3d Cir. 1976). However, the plaintiff has drawn the Court's attention to cases in support of the antithesis. Jennings Oil Co., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 1979-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P 62,826 (S.D.N.Y. August 23, 1979) (motion for judgment on the pleadings denied because relevant market might consist solely of Mobil Oil products); Bushie v. Stenocord Corp., 460 F.2d 116, 121 (9th Cir. 1972) ("A single manufacturer's products might be found to comprise, by themselves, a relevant market. . . ."); Industrial Building Materials, Inc. v. Interchemical Corp., 437 F.2d 1336, 1344 (9th Cir. 1971) (issue of whether defendant's line of industrial sealants constituted relevant product market not disposed of on motion for summary judgment, but rather allowed to go to trial).
Considering the cases cited, the Court concludes that on the basis of the limited facts that the parties have presented about the effective area of competition, the interchangeability of C-wiches with other products, and Martin's ability to get similar products from other manufacturers, the Court is in no position to step into the fray and take judicial notice concerning a product it has never seen, much less consumed. Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a court to take judicial notice only if the party requesting such notice has "supplied [the court] with the necessary information." Fed. R. Evid. 201(d). In the instant case, the information that is needed (to say nothing of the product itself) has not been submitted.
The C-wich in 1981 was a brand new product. How its introduction affected the ice cream sandwich and ice cream novelty markets is not something that a court can divine one year later without the assistance of fairly detailed data. We do not have the well-established products and inter-brand competition information that were determinative in the cases relied upon by the defendants. See, e.g., H.L. Moore Drug Exchange v. Eli Lilly & Co., 457 F. Supp. 75, 1978-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P 62,196 at 74,711 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) (court took judicial notice that relevant product market could not be limited to the products of Eli Lilly & Co. because several other large pharmaceutical manufacturers clearly were in the same arena of competition); Mogul, supra, 391 F. Supp. at 1313 (court took judicial notice that relevant product market could not be limited to the Cadillac, since other luxury automobiles were clearly in the same market).
We conclude, therefore, that judicial notice cannot be taken at this time and that there remains a genuine issue of material fact as to the relevant product market. The existence of this issue leaves us no choice but to deny the defendants' motions with respect to the section 2 claims.
D. Claim of Price Discrimination
The core of Martin's claim of price discrimination in violation of section 2 of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13 (1976), is worded: "On information and belief, beginning in or about early December 1981, Chipwich, pursuant to the aforesaid exclusive sales agreement with [Premium], has sold [C-wiches] of like grade and quality to [Premium] at prices below those charged to Martin." Complaint para. 34. In response to these motions, however, the attorney for Martin, Mr. Steven Thal, has admitted in his affidavit that Martin knows of no facts supporting this claim.
We made this allegation in the complaint on information and belief thinking at the time that Premium had become a strawman distributor to Pathmark and Shoprite in lieu of Martin and had been able to sell to these chains due to a price concession. We have no specific information at this time supporting our hypothesis.
Affidavit of Steven H. Thal para. 25, at 14 (filed August 11, 1982). Martin now asks that it be given an opportunity to discover a basis for its claim, while the defendants contend that the claim should simply be dismissed.
The Court finds itself in great sympathy with the defendants' position. In Chapman v. Rudd Paint & Varnish Co., 409 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1969), the court held that where no genuine issue of material fact is presented and the non-movant plaintiff "not only states that he has no knowledge of the facts alleged in his complaint, but asserts that he knows of no evidence supporting his allegations," summary judgment may properly be entered for the defendant. Id. at 643-44. We are faced with just such a situation in the instant case. All of the affidavits and exhibits confirm that Chipwich never sold any C-wiches to Premium. The Robinson-Patman Act does not apply to transactions which are not sales, and it has been held not to apply to agency or consignment transactions. See, e.g., National Auto Brokers Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 376 F. Supp. 620, 626 (S.D.N.Y. 1974), aff'd, 572 F.2d 953 (2d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1072, 59 L. Ed. 2d 38, 99 S. Ct. 844 (1979). Martin's concession merely confirms the lack of evidence tending to establish a purchaser-seller relationship between Premium and Chipwich. In the absence of such a relationship, Martin's claim of price discrimination must fail.
Were this the only claim before the Court, we would undoubtedly grant summary judgment. However, in this case, in which the other antitrust claims are to go forward and the discovery required to develop them is virtually the same as that which would be required to develop the price discrimination claim, granting summary judgment at this point would serve no purpose. Such a disposition would save the defendants no costs in time, effort, or money and would deprive the plaintiff of whatever opportunity it may otherwise have to build a foundation under the claim, which has at least been adequately pled. Since the facts are exclusively in the possession of the moving party and discovery has barely begun, it appears desirable for the Court to exercise its discretion and deny the motion with leave to renew when discovery is complete. See, e.g., Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 405 F.2d 215, 218 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 906, 89 S. Ct. 1747, 23 L. Ed. 2d 219 (1969); 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2728, at 557 & n.56 (1973 and Supp. 1982). The plaintiff's offer to voluntarily withdraw the claim if it fails to discover evidence of a purchaser-seller relationship has already been established on the record and reduces even further any risk of unfairness to the defendants.
Accordingly, the defendants' motions with respect to the price discrimination claim is denied.
E. Claim of Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations
The defendants move to dismiss this claim for failure to state a cause of action.
The elements of tortious interference with contractual relations are fourfold, namely: (1) the existence of a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the contract; (3) the defendant's intentional procurement of a breach of the contract by the third party; and (4) damages caused by the breach. Optivision, Inc. v. Syracuse Shopping Center Assocs., 472 F. Supp. 665, 684 (N.D.N.Y. 1979); Diehl & Sons, Inc. v. International Harvester Co., 445 F. Supp. 282, 291 (E.D.N.Y. 1978). The defendants contend that Martin's claim fails to allege the most critical element: the existence of a contract between Martin and either supermarket.
A review of the complaint reveals that the defendants are correct. After alleging that it began making sales to Pathmark and Shoprite, Martin merely alleges that the defendants "penetrated" Martin's accounts with those two chains by making direct sales to them and undertook such conduct "tortiously, intentionally and with malice in order to deprive Martin of its contractual relations with its customers, its goodwill and its efforts in promoting [C-wiches]." Complaint paras. 64 & 65.
Such a conclusory allegation as that quoted above fails to identify the elements of the tort and denies the defendants an opportunity to respond. The complaint does not refer the defendants to a valid, existing contract between Martin and its customers, or to any terms of such a contract.
That failure by itself warrants the dismissal of the claim. Nifty Foods Corp. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 614 F.2d 832, 837-38 (2d Cir. 1980); Pinnacle Books, Inc. v. Harlequin Enterprises Ltd., 519 F. Supp. 118, 121 (S.D.N.Y. 1981); Robbins v. Ogden Corp., 490 F. Supp. 801, 810 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).
The Court, therefore, grants the defendants' motions to dismiss the claim of tortious interference with Martin's contractual relations.
F. Claim of Tortious Interference with Economic Advantage
This type of tort has been variously referred to as interference with either economic advantage, prospective advantage, business relations, or pre-contractual relations. Whatever the most apt rubric may be, the elements of the tort are the same, namely: the defendant's interference with business relations existing between the plaintiff and a third party, either with the sole purpose of harming the plaintiff or by means that are "dishonest, unfair or in any other way improper." Robbins, supra, 490 F.2d at 811; see also Noah v. L. Daitch & Co., Inc., 22 Misc. 2d 649, 192 N.Y.S.2d 380, 386 (Sup. Ct. 1959). In this case, the defendants contend that Martin has presented neither aspect of the second element of the tort -- neither a solely malicious motive nor any improper means on the part of the defendants.
The Court, however, cannot agree with the defendants, at least not to the extent that it finds that Martin has adequately pled and raised a question of fact concerning improper means of interference by the defendants.
It is beyond dispute that a conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade or to monopolize trade would constitute improper means. Thus, if Martin is able to prove the antitrust violations discussed earlier, it will also be able to prove improper means.
Martin has also adequately pled the first element of the tort -- the defendants' alleged interference with the economic advantage or business relations that Martin was developing with Pathmark and Shoprite. Although it would appear that the defendants knew of these relations, for the defendants first asked Martin to approach the chains and shortly thereafter began taking large orders from Martin, Chipwich and Premium deny there were any business relations with which the defendants could have interfered. Thus, a second material fact is at issue here.
Consequently, the defendants' motions with respect to the claim of tortious interference with business relations must be denied.
For the reasons outlined above, the defendants' motions with respect to all claims, except that of tortious interference with contractual relations, are denied. The claim that is excepted from the denial is hereby dismissed with leave to amend. The denial of summary judgment with respect to the other seven claims is made without prejudice to the rights of the defendants to renew their motions once additional discovery has been completed.
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:
Laus störf
Bus drivers
NB: We don't want contact with sales-promoters
Employer: Tide Buss AS
Post address: P.O Box.. 6300, 5893 Bergen, Norway
Visit address: Møllendalsveien 1A, Bergen, Norway
Phone: +47 05505
Fax: +47 55 23 87 01
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com
Website: www.tide.no
Contact Persons: Mrs. Eli Østenstad, Phone: + 47 55 55 44 47 or + 47 916 13 231
Mr. Leif Jørgen Ulvatne, Phone: + 47 55 55 44 49 or + 47 951 19 525
Company presentation: We will in cooperation with NAV EURES Norway be present at a
Company presentation in Reykjavik January/February 2011.
Work Place: Bergen city with surrounding areas in the county of Hordaland, Norway. See www.visitbergen.com for more information about Bergen.
About the company: Tide Buss AS, 2500 employees, 1200 buses, main office in Bergen, Norway. Garages located in the city and 6 places in the surrounding area. For further information visit our websites at www.tide.no
Information about the position: We are looking for bus drivers in fulltime permanent positions for our departments in Bergen.
Position demands: The applicant must have drivers licence category D for bus. For licence issued after 10. September 2008 you also have to add "European Directive 2003/59/Ec - Initial qualification and periodic training for drivers of road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers". Further the applicant must be able to for fill required medical tests to get necessary licences. Norway is also demanding a police certificate confirming that the person is not a legal offender. It is an advantage if the applicants have experience in handling heavy vehicles.
Wages: NOK 291 780 - 303 516 gross pr. year (app. EURO: 35.800 - 37.200) depending on experience and qualifications. In addition to ordinary salary there is some supplement for inconvenient working hours.
Application: Send a short application and CV via www.tide.no. Click "ledige stillinger" and
"Tide Buss AS". Register as a new user ("Ny bruker") and fill in your CV and application.
Diplomas and other papers must be brought if interview.
Interview: We will do interviews and driving tests for qualified candidates in Reykjavik in connection with the company presentation.
Work Regulations: Permanent, fulltime, shift work
Application date: 31.12.2010
Start date: As soon as possible and on going.
For further information:
Please call Mrs. Eli Østenstad, Phone: + 47 55 55 44 47 or + 47 916 13 231
Mr. Leif Jørgen Ulvatne, Phone: + 47 55 55 44 49 or + 47 951 19 525, or send e-mail at email@example.com
Fréttir og tilkynningar
26. Janúar 2016
Kynning á tækifærum og styrkjum í Evrópusamstarfi
Kynning á tækifærum og styrkjum í Evrópusamstarfi, fimmtudaginn 28. janúar 2016.
7. Maí 2015
Ertu að flytja til Noregs, Danmerkur eða Svíþjóðar ?
Norræna félagið í samstarfi við Halló Norðurlönd og EURES - evrópska vinnumiðlun standa fyrir upplýsingafundum um flutning til Noregs, Svíþjóðar og Danmerkur.


text:
Vodka Soaked Strawberries
Vodka Chocolate Covered Strawberries •Large Strawberries • Chocolate Infused Vodka (Pinnacle) • Melting Chocolate Rinse strawberries and soak in Vodka for 24 hours. Remove from jar and pat dry. Dip into melted chocolate and let dry on wax paper. Enjoy! Via
Soak Strawberries in Chocolate Flavored Vodka for 24 hours, then dip in melted chocolate. Let cool and serve.
Vodka Soaked Strawberries - Soak strawberries in whipped cream flavored vodka for 24 hours then dip in melted chocolate and let set.Takes Chocolate Covered Strawberries to a whole new level! - bjl
Ingredients: Chocolate infused Vodka Strawberries 1 tub Baker's Milk Chocolate Dipping Chocolate Directions: Rinse off strawberries. Marinate strawberries in air tight container with chocolate vodka for at least 24 hours <-----this is essential! Take strawberries out after 24 hours and pat dry. Then dip in chocolate, refrigerate for 15-20 minutes to harden.
Soak Strawberries in Chocolate Flavored Vodka for 24 hours then dip in melted chocolate. Let cool and serve. Chocolate covered strawberries just got taken to a whole new level New Years Eve!!!
Homemade Chocolate Covered Cherries spiked with vodka or white chocolate liqueur
Whipped vodka soaked strawberries (24 hours) ....remove from Ziploc, let them air dry then dip in choc..... Holy cow its delicious!!! Only thing I'd do different is remove green part... The vodka it sits in works well for strawberry whip cream vodka on the rocks... Happy soaking :)-
You can make virgin cherry bombs! Instead of alcohol, add a teaspoon or two of vanilla to the jar with the cherries and cherry juice. Let that soak for 12-48 hours. Then dip them in vanilla chips and sprinkles as the recipe instructs. You'll get a nice cherry-vanilla flavor and the fun patriotic look without the buzz.
Cake Vodka-Infused Strawberries With Whipped Vanilla Icing on Fit for a Bride blog. Bachelorette party food if I ever saw it!
Image titled Make Vodka Soaked Strawberries Step 6


text:
Discussion in 'Gameboy Advance emulator (gpSPhone)' started by pointblankpb10, Jul 24, 2009.
where do you ssh the gpsphone.app folder into?
You must buy gpSPhone now so you wouldn't be able to get the app.
legally unless you asked ZodTTD
But yes you can put app into /Applications/
but their are more than just those files like system files.
Exactly, you should really install it from Cydia.
i ssh'd it onto my ipod a while back and just saved the file, v3.6.5 i think, and then had to restore my ipod so i had to re-install it, so idk if thats still illegal since the version i have was free and never cost any money.
anyways, i got it to show up on my ipod, but now when i press the icon it flashes a screen that says "game boy advance" then crashes and brings me back to the springboard. any idea how i can fix that?
If you are SSHing a version that was free, then it should be fine.
And yep, sounds like it has system files that need to go elsewhere on the iPod. A lot has changed over the Firmwares. So you will have to get it through Cydia.
alright well thanks anyways
Separate names with a comma.


text: Home Gallery Video New York Hotel & Casino Spread the Luck New York Hotel & Casino: Spread the Luck Published on Oct 17, 2014 Rate this Ad You must be registered to rate the ad. Please Login or Register Now About Description NYNY Hotel & Casino partnered with Southwest to kick off its first-ever direct flight from Dallas to Vegas by surprising some unsuspecting travelers. CreditsDateOct 17, 2014Agency:David&GoliathClient:New York Hotel & CasinoFounder and Chairman:David AngeloChief Creative Officer:Colin JefferyCreative Director:Brad BurkeCreative Director:Matt CurryArt Director:Ben TolbertCopywriter:Chris JuhasStrategist:Jessica WattsHead Of Production:Paul AlbaneseDirector of Print Services:Meredith WalshSenior Producer:Carrie LighthallAccount Director:Jamie SimmsAssistant Account Executive:Kelly YaussiProduction/Editorial Company:MGM Resorts International, Creative ServicesDirector of Photography:Ernesto ZitaExecutive Producer:Ben StanigarEditorial House:MGM Resorts International, Creative ServicesEditor:Kevin Tutaj Latest Creativity News on Ad Age Ice-T and Lemonade Star in Geico's Latest Spot 1stAveMachine, Click 3X, Humble Add Director Duos Lowe's Latest Spot Is 'Multi-Porpoise' Advertisement Ad Age Events Nov 02 Los Angeles, CA SummitAd Age Brand Summit The Ad Age Brand Summit in Los Angeles peels apart the layers of brand building with a carefully crafted roster of top marketing, technology, and creative leaders. Learn more Related work Kia: MVP of SUVs - Tecmo Bros David&Goliath Kia: MVP of SUVs - Tecmo Bo David&Goliath Kia: Share Some Soul Behind the Scenes David&Goliath Want to see your work in our gallery? Submit now


text:
India will deliver on hope of driving global growth: PM Narendra Modi
"The world has much expectations from India in contribution to the global growth. I would like to place before you how India intends to meet the challenge," the prime minister told the Bloomberg India Economic Forum 2016, held here to commemorate the media group's 20 years in India.
Modi said India today was not just the world's fastest-growing economy but also has a low capital account and fiscal deficits, along with low inflation. "This is the result of good policies and not good fortune," he said, alluding to the achievements in the difficult times globally.
"Let me emphasise on our fiscal consolidation. We have met the ambitious fiscal deficit targets in each of the previous two fiscal years," the prime minister said, adding: "We have reduced the deficit even while increasing capital expenditure."
He told the gathering that the country's net foreign direct investment inflow during the third quarter of the current financial year was an all-time record. "This is concrete evidence of the success of 'Make in India' policy in employment-intensive sectors."
As examples, Modi said motor vehicle production, which was a strong indicator of consumer purchasing power and economic activity, grew at 7.6 percent this fiscal, furniture output grew 57 percent and employment-intensive wearing apparel sector grew 8.7 percent.
"My goal is reforms through transformation. Administrative reform is a start."
The prime minister said since a large share of India's population still depended on agriculture, his government's target was to double the income of farmers soon. Towards this, he added, a big focus was being given to irrigation with a large budget.
"We are also creating a national agricultural market and removing distortions," he said, adding" "Seeds have been sown for a new dawn for farming, and retaining the youth in the sector."
The prime minister said transparency was another hallmark of his government, giving the example of auction of resources such as coal through competitive bidding. "Our record on implementation in general and reduction in corruption in particular is now well understood."
Modi said his government will also work with the Reserve Bank of India to set inflation targets and that interest rates will be set by a Monetary Policy Committee -- a panel that will have no representative from the government.
He also referred to the new norms for exploration and production of hydrocarbons assets by the private players. "We have introduced pricing and marketing freedom and also a transparent revenue sharing system. This will eliminate several layers of bureaucratic controls."
He said in renewable energy India has grown from 1,500 MW of solar power to 10,000 MW per annum in a short span of time. People were surprised when the target of 175 GW of renewables was announced. But today, this stood to be recognised by the global stakeholders, he said.
Listing other initiatives, the prime minister said parliament had recently passed a new law on inland waterways to make it an efficient mode of transport and foreign investment limits in the stock exchanges were raised and they were allowed to be listed.


text:
TRUE Skool Ten Year Anniversary Album Now Available
Earlier this week we told you about TRUE Skool's 10 Year Anniversary Album release party at 88Nine RadioMilwaukee which happened last night. If you missed it, I'm sorry for you because it was an amazing event. But don't fret, because the album is now available for purchase at their location in the Shops of the Grand Avenue Mall and digitally on their bandcamp page (embedded below as well).
First off, yes, I do work at TRUE Skool, so I may have felt it just a little more than most people in the room, but the vibe last night was all love. To watch the talented and energetic youth perform the songs they created for their own album in front of a packed house made all of their efforts worth it. The room was filled with family, friends, supporters and even strangers, who without even having to walk through TRUE Skool's doors could immediately understand the impact that the organization has on students' lives and the community that it's built. So thank you to everyone who attended and supported. Now to this music. »Read Full Blog Post
TRUE Skool Presents "10 Films For 10 Years" starting this Wednesday with "The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975"
In celebration of their ten-year anniversary, urban arts youth organization TRUE Skool will host public screenings of ten hip hop related documentary films on the last Wednesday of each month between February and November.
"Ten Films for 10 Years" begins this Wednesday, February 26th, at 6pm (doors at 5:30pm) at their new location on the lower level of the Grand Avenue Mall (161 West Wisconsin Ave, Suite 1000 LL). All the film screenings are free, all-ages and open to the public. Each film will be followed by an art activity and/or a talkback with a special guest. Refreshments will be available for a small donation. Even if you've seen a couple of these films before, watch them again because they are all solid films. And if you haven't checked out TRUE Skool's new space, you are slippin'. »Read Full Blog Post
Concert Review: Chance the Rapper is playing by his own #NewRules
This past Saturday, 20-year-old Chicagoan Chance the Rapper stopped through Milwaukee on his "Social Experiment" Tour. I expected the show at The Rave to be packed with tons of young fans eager to hear him perform songs from his critically acclaimed 2013 mixtape Acid Rap, especially since those under 21 couldn't get into his first Milwaukee show at Harley Davidson's 110th Anniversary this summer. And yeah, it was packed. What I did not expect was the live band, original video production, full light set up, three separate videographers or his complete command of the stage from beginning to end.
Did I mention he's not signed to a major label and only has released two mixtapes? We'll get to that later. Back to the show. »Read Full Blog Post
Best of 2012: Top 10 Hip Hop Songs
We are pretty close to wrapping up our Best of 2012 series and now we've reached the songs. So, for the sake of simplicity we've chosen mostly singles that were released, but there are a few album cuts that will sneak in for sure.
Bizzon's Top 10 Hip Hop Songs of 2012
50 Cent is back with new mixtape The Big 10
50 Cent returns with a new
mixtape album The Big 10. This album isn't for the average 50 fan. If "Candy Shop" is your jam don't bother reading any further. 50 took it back to his gangster roots to give his original fans something to appreciate. The Big 10 is reminiscent of some of 50's early mixtapes such as Guess Who's Back and 50 is the Future.
It almost sounds like he went back home to Jamaica, Queens for a week and got his groove back. If you're a fan of gangsta 50 you'll dig it. Listen below. »Read Full Blog Post(1)


text:
ISIS' Twitter traffic reportedly dropped 45 percent in 2 years
If you ask the US government, the efforts to stifle ISIS' online propaganda are paying off. The White House reports that the extremist group's Twitter traffic has dropped 45 percent in the past 2 years, owing to both attempts to keep accounts offline and a surge of countering messages. To some extent, it was just a matter of getting up to speed. Officials admit that they made mistakes early on in fighting ISIS' online messaging (such as producing a lot of opposing statements in Engilsh), but they say they've both made more relevant content and done a better job of coordinating internet campaigns with its military strategy.
The claims could be difficult to quantify when some Twitter users are bound to have slipped through the cracks, but they're at least partly backed up by AP data. It notes that there's a higher ratio of anti-ISIS content these days (6 to 1), and the pro-ISIS accounts that exist have far fewer followers than in 2014 (300 versus 1,500). It wouldn't be surprising if the group's defeats on the field have also played a part, of course -- disillusionment and sheer casualties are bound to reduce the number of supporters. Whatever is responsible, it's apparent that social networks are now considered an important bellwether in the fight against extremists.Associated Press
More in News
Inland route to Kaikōura 'nearly open'Radio New Zealand
The best pictures from around the world this week
Paying rent, but can't get inRadio New Zealand
Benefit cut after abuse payoutRadio New Zealand
'There was an earthquake in his brain'Mirror
Brownlee's future uncertain without KeyRadio New Zealand
More in News
More from Engadget
Fluctuating brain networks help you handle complex tasksEngadget
UK retailer leaks Google's Pixel phones in detailEngadget
Solar road tiles get their first public testEngadget
Blue Apron's meal kit service has had worker safety problemsEngadget


text:
"The town hall" Top 5 Page for this destination Marseille Things to Do Tip by JLBG
Marseille Things to Do: 484 reviews and 1,157 photos
The town hall of Marseille is a small building on northwestern bank of the Vieux Port. It was built in 1653 on the site of the former City House. It is decorated by a medallion by Pierre Puget bearing the arms of France. It is much too small for such a big city. It is now only for ceremonial uses. An annex has been built behind the "Bourse de commerce". During the digging, the oldest harbor of Marseille was discovered
More Things to Do in Marseille (34)
More Reviews (41)
Restaurants (1)Restaurant Le Corbusier
Off The Beaten Path (13)See All La Cit� Radieuse, the landscape
General (14)See All Mus�e d'Histoire de Marseille
Transportation (3)See All Ferries
JLBG's Related Pages
"I believe that tourists are very valuable to the modern world. It is very difficult to hate people you know. (Steinbeck)"
- Member Rank:
- 0 0 0 0 3
- Forum Rank:
- 0 1 9 9 5
- 6,083 Reviews
- 10,917 Photos
- Add Friend
- Follow
- Send Message
Have you been to Marseille?Share Your Travels


text:
Learn how to record, edit, and publish high-quality videos (including screen capture and mobile video) with Camtasia 3 for Mac.
All Courses
- Education + Elearning (5)
- Educational Technology (4)
- Instructional Design (4)
- Elearning (3)
- Higher Education (2)
- Teacher Tools (1)
- Camtasia
- Techsmith (4)
- Adobe (1)
- Articulate (1)
- Articulate Studio (1)
- Captivate (1)
- Lectora Inspire (1)
- Storyline (1)
- Trivantis (1)
Skill level
- Beginner
- Intermediate (1)
- Advanced (1)
- Appropriate for all (992)
More options
Learn to create high-quality and engaging video presentations and elearning content with Camtasia 9, the popular screen-capture software.
Learn how to record, edit, and publish high-quality videos (including screen capture and mobile video) with Camtasia for Mac 2.
Discover the fundamentals of screencasting and elearning, and compare the most popular tools, including Captivate, Articulate Studio, Articulate Storyline, Lectora, and Camtasia.
Demonstrates the powerful screen recording capabilities of Camtasia Studio, including how to set up, record, edit, and share a professional looking screencast.
"I really get a lot of value from my monthly subscription. You make me feel like my subscription is the best $25-a-month I spend in my budget." —Don M.
more from our members »


text:
Monetizing a successful mobile app is not easy - A must read 'failure' post from 4chan founder
Continue reading on Chris Hate Writing - Blog
No soft landing, no happy ending—we simply failed.
It's been a long four year journey, full of highs and lows. I am simultaneously incredibly proud, and incredibly disappointed.
I'm incredibly proud of an amazing team and all that they have accomplished. Our most recent product,DrawQuest, is by all accounts a success. In the past year it's been downloaded more than 1.4 million times, and is currently used by about 25,000 people a day, and 400,000 last month alone. Retention and engagement are great. And yet we still failed.


text:
Tthe auto-bailout hypothesis missed a larger point. There is a bigger and better hypothesis to explain the successful Obama firewall: The 2010 election, and the experience of living under Tea Party rule. 2010 was the Tea Party election.
Read Whole Story
In March, Ohio GOP legislators passed Senate Bill 5, which drastically reduced the bargaining power of public employees' unions. Unionists and their D...
Some extreme politicians are blaming hard working people for the economic hardships facing many of our states and communities. The attack on public sector workers is evidence of leaders who want to ask for more and more.
John Morris walked down the tree-lined streets of Shaker Heights, knocking on doors and buttonholing residents.
An English teacher at the high scho...
Get top stories and blog posts emailed to me each day. Newsletters may offer personalized content or advertisements. Learn more.


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
United States District Court, S.D. New York
September 18, 2014
ABDEL-SHAHEED FARRAD MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff,v.COMMISSIONER DORA SCHRIRO, New York City Department Of Correction, WARDEN KATIE MULVEY, New York City Department Of Correction, and SEVERAL JOHN DOE CORRECTION OFFICERS AT GRVC, RIKERS ISLAND, Defendants.
P. KEVIN CASTEL, District Judge.
Plaintiff Abdel-Shaheed Farrad Muhammad, who represents himself pro se, alleges that defendants violated his civil rights by destroying his personal copies of the Qur'an and the Bible while searching his cell at Rikers Island. He asserts, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that the defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his Muslim faith and deprived him of the right to due process, thereby violating the protections guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. He also asserts that the defendants violated New York law and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq. ("RLUIPA").
The defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., arguing that Muhammad previously executed a general release (the "Release") that bars his claims in this action. The Release is not incorporated by reference into the Complaint, and it is unclear whether it was ever filed with a court. Defendants served Muhammad with the statement required by Local Civil Rule 56.2, which advised Muhammad that the motion to dismiss could potentially be converted into a motion for summary judgment. (Docket # 35.) In his opposition papers, Muhammad, who describes himself as an experienced litigant in this District, has included an affirmation and several evidentiary submissions that go beyond the four corners of his Complaint.
Because the parties have relied on evidence beyond the pleadings, the Court converts the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. The Release's express language bars Muhammad's claims in this action, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment is therefore granted.
Muhammad alleges that at approximately 9:00 a.m. on March 8, 2010, a search team entered housing Unit # 15A in the George R. Vierno Center ("GRVC") on Rikers Island. (Compl't at 2.) Corrections officers performed strip searches of the inmates, removed them from their cells and instructed them to observe in-cell searches. (Compl't at 2.) Muhammad states that he complied with all instructions. (Compl't at 2.)
According to the Complaint, a John Doe defendant corrections officer picked up Muhammad's copy of the Qur'an and examined it, at which point, Muhammad requested that the officer turn through the pages in order to inspect it for contraband. (Compl't at 2.) In response, the officer allegedly tore the cover from the Qur'an, threw it on the floor and stepped on it. (Compl't at 2.) A second officer did the same to Muhammad's copy of the Bible. (Compl't at 2.) Muhammad states that he immediately alerted a deputy warden, who then said, "Shut the fuck up!" and "Toss his fucken cell again!" (Compl't at 2.) The officers continued to search the cell and to step on the two books. (Compl't at 2.) According to Muhammad, officers threw the books and stepped on them during a subsequent search of March 16, 2010. (Compl't at 2.)
Muhammad states that he discussed the incidents with a facility chaplain, and showed the chaplain torn and shoe-marked books. (Compl't at 2-3.) The chaplain responded that the corrections staff had violated Muhammad's religious rights, and suggested that Muhammad file a complaint. (Compl't at 3.) Muhammad administratively grieved the incident, and his claim was denied. (Compl't at 3.)
Muhammad then commenced a state-court action in the Bronx Civil Court, where no disposition was reached. (Compl't at 3.) In opposition to the defendants' motion, he has submitted filings from that action, which apparently was commenced on or about September 9, 2010, and asserted that under the RLUIPA and the First Amendment, the City of New York and John Doe defendants were liable for damage to certain "religious books." (Opp. Mem. Ex. B.) Muhammad indicates that counsel for defendants neglected to litigate that action, prompting him to initiate the present case. (Muhammad Aff. ¶¶ 7-8.) Muhammad, who is no longer incarcerated, seeks $100, 000 in damages. (Compl't at 4.)
Muhammad states that he has "filed numerous civil matters within the USDC/SDNY from 1990 to current under the name Abdul-Shaheed Farrakhan-Muhammad, Shaheed Muhammad, Paul Farrad Simmons and Paul Simmons." (Compl't at 4.) According to the defendants, he also brought a previous action in the New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, captioned Paul Farrad Simmons v. City of New York, et al., Index No. 252169-2009 (the "Simmons Action"). (Gutmann Dec. ¶ 4.) The Simmons Action arose over officials' failure to return confiscated clothing. (Opp. Mem. at 2; Muhammad Aff. ¶ 5 & Ex. B.) Specifically, it appears that Muhammad, who then went by the name Paul Simmons, claimed that officials never returned five pairs of pants, twelve shirts and various other items of apparel. (Muhammad Aff. Ex. B.) On or about December 3, 2011, Muhammad executed a General Release (the "Release") settling that action, pursuant to which he was paid $1, 500 in consideration for releasing all existing claims against the City of New York. (Gutmann Dec. Ex B.) The Release stated in relevant part that Muhammad:
does hereby release and forever discharge the City of New York, and all past and present officers, directors, managers, administrators, employees, agents, assignees, lessees, and representatives of the City of New York, and all other individually named defendants and entities represented and/or indemnified by the City of New York, collectively the "RELEASEES, " from any and all claims, causes of action, suits, debts, sums of money, accounts, controversies, transactions, occurrences, agreements, promises, damages, judgments, executions, and demands whatsoever, known or unknown, which RELEASOR had, now has or hereafter can, shall, or may have against the RELEASEES for, upon or by reason of any matter, cause or thing whatsoever that occurred through the dates of this RELEASE.
(Gutmann Dec. Ex. B.) According to the defendants, because the present action seeks relief for events that occurred prior to the Release's execution, the Release governs this action, and Muhammad's claims must be dismissed.
"In adjudicating a motion to dismiss, a court may consider only the complaint, any written instrument attached to the complaint as an exhibit, any statements or documents incorporated in it by reference, and any document upon which the complaint heavily relies." In re Thelen LLP , 736 F.3d 213, 219 (2d Cir. 2013). If a motion to dismiss relies on "matters outside the pleadings, " the Court may convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P. See Rule 12(d), Fed. R. Civ. P.; Parada v. Banco Industrial De Venezuela, C.A. , 753 F.3d 62, 67-68 (2d Cir. 2014).
When a general release has been filed with a court and is a matter of public record, a court may properly take judicial notice of it, and consider it on a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Twine v. Four Unknown New York Police Officers , 2012 WL 6184014, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2012). In other circumstances, a general release is not appropriately considered as part of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See, e.g., Calcutti v. SBU, Inc. , 273 F.Supp.2d 488, 497-99 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (judicial notice not appropriate when an unauthenticated general release was attached to a reply and went beyond a complaint's allegations).
In this instance, the Release is beyond the four corners of the Complaint, which makes no mention of the Release or the Simmons Action. There is no indication that the Release was publicly filed, and there it is not properly the subject of judicial notice. At the same time, Muhammad does not challenge the authenticity of the Release, arguing instead that it should be given no legal effect. (See, e.g., Opp. Mem. at 1-2; Muhammad Aff. ¶¶ 3-5 & Ex. A.) In opposition to the defendants' motion, Muhammad has submitted an affirmation, as well as documents related to the Simmons Action and the underlying events described in the Complaint. These materials are appropriately considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment. Moreover, as already noted, the defendants served Muhammad with a statement required by Local Civil Rule 56.2, which explains the possibility that a motion to dismiss may be converted into a motion for summary judgment, and sets forth the burdens for opposing a summary judgment motion.
Given the parties' evidentiary submissions and the fact that Muhammad received the notice required by Local Rule 56.2, conversion of defendants' motion into a motion for summary judgment is appropriate here.
Summary judgment "shall" be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. It is the movant's initial burden to come forward with evidence on each material element of its claim or defense, sufficient to demonstrate its entitlement to relief as a matter of law. Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 Beargram Co. , 373 F.3d 241, 244 (2d Cir. 2004). In raising a triable issue of fact, the non-movant carries only "a limited burden of production, " but nevertheless "must demonstrate more than some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, ' and come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Powell v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Exam'rs , 364 F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Aslanidis v. U.S. Lines, Inc. , 7 F.3d 1067, 1072 (2d Cir. 1993)).
A fact is material if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, " meaning that "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 Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor, granting summary judgment only when no reasonable trier of fact could find in favor of the nonmoving party. Costello v. City of Burlington , 632 F.3d 41, 45 (2d Cir. 2011); accord Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 585-88 (1986). In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court may scrutinize portions of the record not cited by the parties, and grant or deny summary judgment as the record warrants. Rule 56(c)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P. In the absence of any disputed material fact, summary judgment is appropriate. Rule 56(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.
"A party opposing summary judgment does not show the existence of a genuine issue of fact to be tried merely by making assertions that are conclusory or based on speculation." Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Salvino, Inc. , 542 F.3d 290, 310 (2d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); see also Anderson , 477 U.S. at 249-50 (summary judgment "may be granted" if the opposing evidence is "merely colorable" or "not significantly probative") (citations omitted). An opposing party's facts "must be material and of a substantial nature, not fanciful, frivolous, gauzy, spurious, irrelevant, gossamer inferences, conjectural, speculative, nor merely suspicions." Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv. , 648 F.2d 97, 107 n. 14 (2d Cir. 1981) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
A defendant has the initial burden of establishing that a release bars the plaintiff's claims. Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V. , 17 N.Y.3d 269. 276 (2011). The burden then shifts to the plaintiff "to show that there has been fraud, duress or some other fact which will be sufficient to void the release.'" Id . (quoting Fleming v. Ponziani , 24 N.Y.2d 105, 111 (1969)). "Notably, a release may encompass unknown claims, including unknown fraud claims, if the parties so intend and the agreement is fairly and knowingly made.'" Id . (quoting Mangini v. McClurg , 24 N.Y.2d 556-67 (1969)). Centro Empresarial concluded that the "broad language of the release, " which barred "all manner of actions... whatsoever... whether past, present or future, actual or contingent, " reflected the intention to release defendants from claims that were unknown at the time that the release was executed. Id. at 277. "[W]ords of general release are clearly operative not only as to all controversies and causes of action between the releasor and releasees which had, by that time, actually ripened into litigation, but to all such issues which might then have been adjudicated as a result of pre-existent controversies.'" A.A. Truck Renting Corp. v. Navistar, Inc. , 81 A.D.3d 674, 675 (2d Dep't 2011) (alteration omitted) (quoting Lucio v. Curran , 2 N.Y.2d 157, 161-62 (1956)).
Muhammad acknowledges that he executed the Release in the Simmons Action, though he adds that Paul Farrad Simmons was his "slave name." (Opp. Mem. at 2.) "There was no other specified release against future incidents, " he states. (Id.) Muhammad argues that the Release should not apply because in the Simmons Action, he did not bring claims under the RLUIPA, and that the Simmons Action did not involve officials' alleged destruction of his religious texts. (Id.) "I was never informed by any Court or counsel that settled told me that the release would cause dismissal of any future incidents that violated any of my rights, so to even dismiss a case that stands on the language of the [RLUIPA] where a substantial burden on Religious Freedom was caused by the defendants, would be deemed prejudice to the statutes of the Federal law." (Id.) Muhammad further states:
[Defendants' counsel] asserts that my slave name and my Muslim name are me, but the action against me as a muslim practicing my faith should be discounted by a general release that had nothing to do with clothes they took from me then lost them because that is why I got the $1, 500; to relace [sic] my clothes. I would never be reduced to an amount like that for the desecration of Holy Books that are as sacred to Allah as they are to me. Thus, I submit to my best abilty [sic] my opposition.
The language of the Release, however, is unambiguous, and bars all claims arising out of past events. In the Release, Muhammad agrees to "hereby release and forever discharge the City of New York and all past and present... employees... from any and all claims, causes of action, suits... and demands whatsoever, known or unknown, " that Muhammad "had, now has or hereafter can, shall, or may have... upon or by reason of any matter, cause or thing whatsoever that occurred through the dates of this RELEASE." (Gutmann Dec. Ex. B; Muhammad Dec. Ex. A.) Muhammad executed the Release on December 3, 2011. (Gutmann Dec. Ex. B; Muhammad Dec. Ex. A.) The express text of the Release therefore barred claims that Muhammad "had" or "may have" as of the "dates of this RELEASE, " which would include those claims related to the events of March 2010. (Gutmann Dec. Ex. B; Muhammad Dec. Ex. A.) Even though Muhammad had not yet commenced this action, the underlying events were capable of adjudication at that time. See A.A. Truck Renting Corp. , 81 A.D.3d at 675.
Muhammad also argues that he was not advised that the Release would bar him from bringing subsequent actions, and that the Release should therefore only apply to the Simmons Action. (Opp. Mem. at 2.) But "it is well-established that a general release containing language that is clear and unambiguous will protect parties from lawsuits, " and only "duress, illegality, fraud or mutual mistake are causes sufficient to invalidate it." Philips South Beach, LLC v. ZC Specialty Ins. Co. , 55 A.D.3d 493, 496 (1st Dep't 2008). Muhammad's contention that no one adequately explained to him the implications of the Release's terms does not fall within the "causes sufficient to invalidate" the Release. Id.
The defendants have come forward with evidence establishing that the Release bars Muhammad's claims, and that Muhammad has not offered any fact or argument that invalidates the Release. See generally Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. , 17 N.Y.3d at 276. Because no reasonable jury could conclude that the Release is invalid, the defendants' motion is granted and the case is dismissed.
The defendants' motion to dismiss is converted into a motion for summary judgment, and the motion is GRANTED. (Docket # 34.) The Clerk is directed to terminate the motion and to enter judgment for the defendants. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. Coppedge v. United States , 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
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:
Nice to meet you.
We've introduced fresh frozen yoghurt in the Netherlands in 2010 (see movie) - and we've spread the love for it ever since.
The best news is that Frozz is 100% natural and contains only 100kcal - 120kcal per 100 gr, depending on the delicious flavour you choose. The fresh yoghurt comes from milk from Dutch cows.
You can enjoy Frozz in one of our shops or get your cups in various supermarkets, bubbling beachclubs, department stores, company restaurants and on-the-go shops. Let's Frozz!
Looking for delicious really-easy-to-prepare recipes with Frozz? Here is a selection of our favourites… (sorry, only in Dutch).
Frozz Naturel with red fruit compote and Kletskoppen cookies.
Download Recipe (pdf)
Frozz Rasberry & Chocolate with pancakes, hazelnuts and honey.
Download Recipe (pdf)
Frozz Apple & Cinnamon with pancakes, almonds and Speculaas cookies.
Download Recipe (pdf)
Get your delicious and 100% natural Frozz frozen yoghurt in the following locations.
From April until September we run many more Frozz shops than in winter. Currently we look forward to serving you at:
Amsterdam, De Bijenkorf (5th floor)
Amsterdam, AH to Go, WTC-Zuidplein
Amsterdam, VU campus hoofdgebouw
Den Bosch, Jeroen Bosch ziekenhuis, bezoekers restaurant (gebouw C)
Eindhoven, AH to Go, High Tech Campus 1
Maastricht, Nieuwstraat 15
Lisbon, Portugal, Rua Dom Pedro V, 145
Also available in Jumbo supermarkets and on-the-go shops.
Get your 100% natural Frozz in convenient cups for in the park, at work or to enjoy together at home. Our favourite flavour combinations are available in convenient 150ml cups. Frozz cups are available (in three flavours you'll love) in freezers at many Jumbo supermarkets. Also available in the summer at several locations along the Dutch beaches and in-company restaurants.
Check out our easy to make dessert recipes to surprise your family and friends.
Thanks all for the positive feedback we keep receiving daily in our shops / in print / via the net and at our Facebook page. Here you can find some of the links sent to us since we started introducing frozen yoghurt in the Netherlands. For more information feel free to get in touch.
For the love of frozen yoghurt we take Frozz on tour with our container unit or bring joy with our Piaggio at all kinds of (business) events and festivals like:
If you want a Pop up Frozz shop in a box or on wheels in your neighborhood, email us at email@example.com
Looking for fun and inspiration? Follow us on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram to see what our fans and we are up to.
You can also get your Frozz 150ml cups to enjoy at home or on the go at Jumbo supermarkets or online via jumbo.com. Enjoy!
In case you would like to know in detail about frozen yoghurt and our passion for this delicious Dutch dairy treat or how we carefully select the freshest toppings — feel free to contact us at: firstname.lastname@example.com
If you want to join us in the mission to share the joy of frozen yoghurt in your region, contact us at: email@example.com or click here.
Applying for a fun job - you do
at email@example.com


text:
Our client's needs are often multi-faceted and require professionals with many different skills. Khalifeh & Associates Consulting Engineers provide integrated engineering services. We work collaboratively with planners, architects, engineers and owners to solve complex mechanical and electrical engineering challenges.
why us
At Khalifeh & Associates, we adhere to a Standard of Excellence in everything we do. Our clients, big or small, receive individual attention and the benefits of years of experience in the engineering field. RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, OR MIXED USE FACILITIES - NO MATTER WHAT THE PROJECT, CHOOSE KHALIFEH & ASSOCIATES AND YOU'VE CHOSEN THE STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE!
Making Sure Your Building is Up to California Code – Title 24 Compliance
There are a number of regulations set by the government with which a building must be in compliance. One such regulation is that of Title 24, the California Energy Code, of the California Code of Regulations also known as The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Title 24 is not solely applicable to electrical standards; it applies, to mechanical and plumbing standards which affect energy usage as well...
Read More...