text:
Actually Mansoura University continues to ascend in the domestic and international rankings of universities. Mansoura University has aptly achieved the second position among the Egyptian universities, after being in the third position last year. It becomes the ninth in Africa according to the results of Webometrics 2016 . Also Mansoura University occupies the first place among the Egyptian universities in terms of the numbers of international students in both stages of university education namely undergraduate and postgraduate. Though we are highely, honored, this increases our burdens in order to preserve it, and it makes our responsibilities to exerts no efforts to excel ourselves at every step, this honorable attitude brings a lot of cooperation between the university and the most important destinations , and they also benefit the university in playing its role efficiently as it makes progress by effort and work.
International Students Administration and International Students Club at Mansoura University, under the patronage of Prof. Mohammed Hassan El-Kenawy, president of the university, organized "Sports Tournament". It included a number of games; football, basketball and handball. It was attended by (120) students from various foreign communities which receive knowledge in Mansoura University in all different level of education. The competitions took place in the Olympic Village in an enthusiastic atmosphere with the presence of many students from different communities with the participation and encouragement of the Egyptian students.
International Students Administration and its staff members at Mansoura University is keen to upgrade and communicate with International Students, and facilitate their difficulties in order to make them feel that they are in their second country, Egypt. International Students Administration invites all international students to communicate and interact to offer all types of help and assistance
Important announcement for our International Students in undergraduate level: For all the students who register to study at Mansoura university for the new academic year 2016/2017 have to log in to the following link to know the students who get the recommendation to study at Mansoura university. Click Here
The International Students' Administration in Mansoura University has established a nursery for international students' kids to enable them to do their exams without worrying about their kids with the purpose of helping them succeed and excel.
The office aims to set goals and integrated policies to support international students in many areas, as well as helping students overcome the difficulties in front of them and through Alastrtejah the following goals:
* Facilitate and monitor the registration procedures, registration and graduation for students within the university Care of international students and by providing:
* Academic support.
* Health and psychological support services.
* Marketing and provision of information for all courses in the various university faculties, conditions of admission.
The First Edition of "The International Newspaper of International Students'' with the voice of our International Student at Mansoura University in English and Arabic language , under the patronage of Prof. Mohamed Hassan El-Kenawy( President of Mansoura University). This is to exchange culture among different nationalities in Mansoura University.
International Students Administration, under the supervision of prof. Hossam El-Din Mostafa would like to thank prof. Mohamed Hassan El-Kenawy, the president of Mansoura University for his continuous support for the administration. Special thanks to him for approving to establish The First Scientific Conference for Researches and Innovations of International Students at Egyptian Universities which will be held from 18 - 19 April 2016. The participation in the conference is open for any Egyptian researcher or International student who is currently or was previously enrolled in any Egyptian Educational Institution. The participation is about presenting a distinguished scientific research, or an academic or applied scientific innovation. Mansoura University will sponsor the presentation of such researches in a multinational carnival conference. For more information, check the university website.
Prof. Mohammed Hassan El-Kenawy, president of Mansoura University received a delegation from the Council of Ministers and the Ministry of Education, Malaysia, headed by Mr. Shlan Ismail, accompanied by the Malaysian Embassy members, headed by Dr. Mohammed Radi, Cultural Counselor of Malaysia in Cairo in the presence of Vice President for Education and Student Affairs and general supervisor of the International Student Administration. The visit comes within the framework of the consolidation of relations between the Malaysian Ministry of Education and the University of Mansoura and discuss the conditions and problems of Malaysian students.
Prof. El-Kenawy confirmed that MU is ready to receive complaints and the problems of international students and Malaysian students with great care and concern by Mansoura University.
On behalf of the Iraqi consul in Egypt, the representatives of Iraqi community presented a memorial shield of the Iraqi embassy to the president of the university, as a sign of appreciation and gratitude for the efforts of the university's administration, deans of faculties and all employees of the international students Administration. In the presence of Dr. Hossam El-Din Mustafa, coordinator of International Students Administration and Mrs. Sahar El-Eraky, director of the International Students Administration, they conveyed the Iraqi embassy's constant consideration of communicating with the university to take care of the Iraqi Students.
Mr. Haitham El-Shegeiry and Mr. Qasim Prias Ahmed were the representatives of the Iraqi community.
Mansoura University is pleased to apply for Undergraduate level, Postgraduate level and International Researchers.


text:
Series: Twenty Six (2010)
The Adventure Team Helicopter was released boxed in 2010 in an exclusive set from the Official G.I. Joe Collectors' Club. The set also included the Air Adventurer.
Driver/Pilot: AIR ADVENTURER (v1)
The Air Adventurer was released carded in a boxed set with the Adventure Team Helicopter in 2010 as an exclusive with the G.I. Joe Collectors' Club.
Easily Broken/Lost Pieces
The most commonly lost piece on the Adventure Team Helicopter is the silver roll cage.
The four silver missiles and the black bomb are also sometimes lost.
No variations of Adventure Team Helicopter are known to exist.
Vehicle Construction
The mold was repainted or retooled for the following vehicles:
Comandos Helicóptero (2009)
SAF Copter (2009)
Adventure Team Helicopter (2010)
Reference InformationThe below information contains information about references to various collector's guides, Hasbro references, original retail prices, and other reference material related to Adventure Team Helicopter.
Original Retail: $34.99
Hasbro Product: 05-10
RAHC/Rank & File: n/a
Lee's Guide: n/a
Desimone Guide: n/a
Tomart's Guide: n/a
The Ultimate Guide: n/a
Action Figure Archive Guide: n/a
3 3/4" Vehicles - By Year
3 3/4" Vehicles - Alphabetical Listing
The only thing harder to keep track of than the 500+ G.I.Joe action figures released since 1982 are the many guns, backpacks, helmets, and knives that were included with the figures. With almost 1800 different G.I.Joe accessories, identifying them was once a long, arduous task. But not anymore.
Enter WHOBIT.
If you have an accessory and don't know which figure it came with, follow the instructions below and let WHOBIT help you identify where it came from.
Upgrade Your YoJoe Pro Membership
The feature you are attempting to use requires an upgrade to your YoJoe Pro membership.
We have multiple upgrade options available starting at $20 a year.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
All Thanksgiving Cookware
Sur La Table Hard-Anodized Roasting Pan with Nonstick Rack and Bonus Lifters
Whether roasting turkey, leg of lamb, prime rib or venison, our...
Now: $59.96
Was: $89.95
Sur La Table Tri-Ply Stainless Steel Roasting Pan, 16" x 13"
To create our most popular cookware collection, we took the...
Now: $95.96
Was: $159.95
Le Creuset Heritage Covered Baker, 4 qt.
Perfect for entrees, side dishes, desserts and more, this...
Staub Mini Round Cocotte
We teamed up with Staub to bring you this gorgeous new color that...
+ Special Offer
Jacques Pépin Collection Tomato Baker
The best cooking is a happy marriage between technique and...
All-Clad Stainless Steel Saucepans with Lids
All-Clad's classic saucepans deliver delicious results...
Now: $79.96 - $224.95
Was: $129.95 - $224.95
All-Clad HA1 Nonstick Covered Skillet, 12"
This classic skillet delivers delicious results, whether...
All-Clad HA1 Nonstick Covered Chef's Pan, 12"
Create everything from healthy stir-fry favorites to rich...
All-Clad Cast-Aluminum Nonstick Dutch Oven, 6½ qt.
Perfect for slow-cooked chili, roasted meats, stewed vegetables...
Now: $99.96
Was: $159.95
Scanpan Evolution Skillet with Lid, 11"
A versatile addition to any kitchen, this nonstick skillet is...
Now: $99.96
Was: $134.95
Scanpan CTQ Nonstick Skillets
Ideal for browning meats, flipping pancakes, searing tuna and...
Now: $89.96 - $179.95
Was: $119.95 - $179.95
Sur La Table Dishwasher-Safe Hard-Anodized Nonstick Ultimate Pan, 6.5 qt.
Whether sautéing veggies, braising a roast or whipping...
Now: $79.96
Was: $139.95


text:
With the release of iOS 7 came a new and "improved" Notification Center, featuring two new tabs: "Today," which shows you information that might be helpful today, and "Missed," which shows notifications that you received earlier and might have missed. Squeezed between these two tabs, though, is the "All" tab which is essentially the same as the old iOS 6 Notification Center.
A new tweak called "NCAllOnly" allows you to do exactly what it sounds: make the "All" tab the only one shown when you open Notification Center. The tweak is available right now, completely free, on the Big Boss repo in Cydia. Note: This tweak, like most other tweaks, is not yet compatible with iOS devices sporting the A7 processor.


text:
Please enter your size
Please enter your body type
Please enter your height
Rainbow RY Boyfriend Pants
Can't find your size? Special Order
- 50% poly , 41% cotton , 9% rayon
- Drawstring waist
- Intentional color variation throughout
- Revolve Style No. REBE-WP116
- Manufacturer Style No. RWTF3-618-15-HGR
- Modeled in size S.
- Model Measurements: Height 5'11", Waist 25", Bust 32, Hips 35"
- Size Guide
Old-school aesthetics, back-in-the-day pop culture references, and creatively bleached and blended washes make us want to shout the rebel yell? cuz' we want more, more, more.
If an item you would like to purchase is out of stock, you can place a Special Order Inquiry. REVOLVE will then check the availability and obtain an approximate arrival date for the item, if available. Typically, it takes up to 3-4 weeks to verify this information.
Placing a Special Order Inquiry is absolutely free and there is no obligation to follow through with a purchase.
- You will be notified by email once we receive the item.
- You may cancel at any time without penalty
- Your card will ONLY be charged when your order is shipped.
- Availability is not guaranteed.


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 Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
March 24, 2015
CHRIS KOHLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.BED BATH & BEYOND OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, DBA Bed Bath & Beyond #1136, Defendant-Appellee
Argued and Submitted, Pasadena California: February
3, 2015.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. 2:11-cv-04451-RSWL-SP. Ronald S.W. Lew, Senior District Judge, Presiding,
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding.
Americans with Disabilities Act
The panel affirmed the district court's summary judgment and reversed its award of attorneys' fees in favor of the defendant in an action under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Affirming the grant of summary judgment on a claim regarding clearance next to a restroom door in a store, the panel followed the holding of Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond of Cal., LLC, 778 F.3d 827, at *2-*3 (9th Cir. Feb. 19, 2015), that the ADA Accessibility Guidelines do not require any length of wall space on the side of the doorframe opposite the hinges.
The panel also affirmed the district court's ruling that the defendant, as a tenant, was not liable for ADA violations occurring in the parking lot outside of its store where that area of the property was controlled by the landlord and was not leased by the defendant.
Reversing the district court's award of attorneys' fees to the defendant as a prevailing party, the panel held that the district court erred in concluding that eight of the plaintiff's ten claims were frivolous.
Scottlynn J. Hubbard, IV (argued), Law Offices of Lynn Hubbard, Chico, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Matthew S. Kenefick (argued), and Martin H. Orlick, Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, San Francisco, California, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Stephen Reinhardt and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges and J. Frederick Motz,[*] Senior District Judge.
Page 1261
GOULD, Circuit Judge:
Chris Kohler appeals from a grant of summary judgment to defendant Bed Bath & Beyond of California (" BB& B" ) on Kohler's claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (" ADA" ), and also appeals the award of attorneys' fees and costs to BB& B as a prevailing defendant. Regarding summary judgment, Kohler contends that the district court erred in concluding that the ADA does not require wall space within the maneuvering clearance next to the frame of a restroom door that must be pulled open; and that the district court erred in ruling that, BB& B, as a tenant, was not liable for ADA violations occurring in the parking lot outside of its store. Kohler further contends that the district court erred in concluding that several of his claims warranted the award of attorneys' fees to BB& B; and that the district court erred in its calculation of fees awarded. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We conclude that Kohler's substantive claims related to maneuvering clearance and tenant liability must be rejected and accordingly we affirm summary judgment. However, we agree that BB& B was not entitled to attorneys' fees for any of Kohler's claims, and so we reverse the district court's fee award.
Page 1262
Kohler is disabled; he is a paraplegic and requires the use of a wheelchair to move in public. Several times in May 2011, Kohler visited the BB& B store at the Lake Elsinore Marketplace in Lake Elsinore, California. During those visits he encountered purported architectural barriers, both within the store and in the parking lot of the shopping center, that he claimed impeded his ability to fully use the store. Kohler brought suit against BB& B in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Kohler claimed violations of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § § 12101--12213, and related state law provisions. In his complaint, Kohler alleged ten purported access barriers; those relevant to this appeal relate to: (1) floor and wall space adjacent to the restroom door; (2) slopes and cross-slopes in the shopping center's parking lot; and (3) the placement and operation of toilet paper and paper towel dispensers within the BB& B's restroom.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. With respect to the claims of insufficient clearance next to the restroom door, the district court concluded that the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (" Guidelines" ), which set out the ADA compliance requirements for physical structures, required only a minimum amount of floor space, rather than both floor and wall space on the pull side of a door. The district court also concluded that BB& B did not " own, lease or operate" the shopping center parking lot, and therefore was not liable for any ADA barriers occurring there. Finally, the district court concluded that Kohler had not asserted an actionable barrier with regard to the location of the toilet paper dispenser, as his complaint asserted only violations of state law, and that any violations related to the paper towel dispenser had been rendered moot when BB& B installed a new, compliant dispenser.[1] On this basis, the district court denied Kohler's motion and granted BB& B's motion on all of Kohler's ADA claims. The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kohler's state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.
BB& B thereafter moved for attorneys' fees as the " prevailing party" under 42 U.S.C. § 12205. The district court concluded that eight of Kohler's ten claims " were, at a minimum, litigated without any foundation." Regarding Kohler's maneuvering space claims, the district court noted that it had described the claims as " illogical" in its summary judgment order, and that Kohler's counsel had unsuccessfully litigated similar claims. Regarding the parking lot claims, the district court held that Kohler should have been aware that BB& B did not own, lease or operate the parking lot for approximately the last year, as he had sued the shopping center's landlord and settled with it over the parking lot violations in September 2011. Regarding the toilet paper dispenser claim, the district court concluded that it was frivolous because it alleged a violation of a requirement not found in the ADA. Finally, the district court also concluded that Kohler's paper towel dispenser claim was " filed without any basis in law or fact," because Kohler alleged that operating the dispenser required " tight grasping, pinching or twisting of the wrist" but it was undisputed that he had full use of his hands. The district court made adjustments to BB& B's claimed lodestar, reduced
Page 1263
that amount by twenty percent (to account for the proportional number of claims found frivolous), and awarded BB& B fees of $59,892.
Kohler timely appealed the district court's judgment, which is now before us.
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008). We will uphold a summary judgment if " there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). We may affirm the district court on any basis supported by the record. Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 329 F.3d 1089, 1097 (9th Cir. 2003).
We review a grant of attorneys' fees for an abuse of discretion. Armstrong v. Davis, 318 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2003). However, " [a] court may abuse its discretion if it uses incorrect legal standards, which we review de novo." EEOC v. Bruno's Rest., 13 F.3d 285, 287 (9th Cir. 1993)
Congress passed the ADA in 1990 " to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities." 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(2). Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination in public accommodations, stating that " [n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation." Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a)). Discrimination includes " a failure to remove architectural barriers . . . in existing facilities . . . where such removal is readily achievable." Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv)).
In appealing the summary judgment order, Kohler addresses only two sets of claims: those dealing with maneuvering clearance around the BB& B restroom doors, and those dealing with the slopes and cross-slopes in the shopping center parking lot.[2]
Kohler argues that the Guidelines require at least eighteen inches of clear wall length opposite the hinge side of a door that is pulled open. In Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond of California, LLC, No. 12-56727, we rejected the same claim; as a matter of law, the Guidelines do not require any length of wall space on the side of the doorframe opposite the hinges. 524 F.3d 1034, at *2-*3 (9th Cir. Feb. 19, 2015). We affirm the grant of summary judgment to BB& B on this claim.
Kohler claims that the district court erred in determining that BB& B did not lease the parking lot at the shopping center, and that BB& B should have been obligated to remediate purported access
Page 1264
barriers occurring in the parking lot. Further, he contends that BB& B's lease, which defined the parking lot as a " Common Area" and further stated that the " Landlord shall operate, maintain, repair and replace the Common Areas . . . [and] shall comply with all applicable Legal Requirements," was an attempt to contract away its ADA liability in violation of our decision in Botosan v. Paul McNally Real., 216 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2000). However, Kohler's reliance on that case is misplaced; our decision did not create liability for tenants, or landlords, where the ADA did not already impose it.
In Botosan, a landlord argued that it could not be held liable for ADA violations on leased property because all ADA compliance responsibility had been shifted to its tenants. See id. at 832. Examining the text and history of the ADA, as well as its implementing regulations, we concluded that the ADA imposes concurrent obligations on landlords and tenants, and that a landlord, as an owner of the property, should be liable for ADA compliance even on property leased to, and controlled by, a tenant. See id. at 832-34. The landlord could not contract away its responsibility under the ADA.
Here, Kohler seeks to extend Botosan to the inverse situation, to extend ADA liability for tenants to those areas of the property controlled by the landlord. But such an extension undermines the fundamental logic of Botosan. BB& B has no liability to contract away on parts of the parking lot over which it has no control. Absent a lease, a landlord remains in full control of an entire property, as its owner. The ADA imposes compliance obligations on " any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation." 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). The existence of a lease that delegates control of parts of that property to a tenant has no effect on the landlord's preexisting obligation, because under the ADA, a party is prevented from doing anything " through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements" that it is prevented from doing " directly." 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i). Here, in contrast, BB& B, like any tenant, has no preexisting control of a property. Absent a lease, it lacks any legal relationship at all to the property. That it takes control of a part of the property, subject to a lease, imposes ADA compliance obligations on it for that part of the property it controls; the landlord's preexisting obligations to the entire property continue unaffected. Botosan allowed a plaintiff to sue both landlord and tenant for ADA violations, confident that one party would be liable for barrier removal notwithstanding the lease provisions; this outcome served the goals of the ADA by " hamper[ing] efforts of a landlord and a tenant to evade ADA requirements." Botosan, 216 F.3d at 834. But Kohler's reading of our decision would impose upon a single tenant--e.g., the cell phone kiosk operating in a shopping center's lobby--liability for ADA violations occurring at the far end of the shopping center's parking lot; such an outcome serves no purpose other than to magnify the potential targets for an ADA lawsuit.[3]
Kohler points to the same two provisions of the ADA quoted above to support his argument, but neither is amenable to
Page 1265
the construction he urges. To reiterate, § 12182(a) imposes compliance obligations on " any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation," while § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i) prohibits discrimination, either " directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements." 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a)-(b). However, there is no dispute that both landlords and tenants have compliance obligations under the ADA, and neither provision explains the scope of such an obligation, the crux of the matter here. As in Botosan, reference to the legislative history behind each provision suggests a particular construction of that scope. The history behind § 12182(a) explains that the provision
makes it clear that the owner of the building which houses the public accommodation, as well as the owner or operator of the public accommodation itself, has obligations under this Act. For example, if an office building contains a doctor's office, both the owner of the building and the doctor's office are required to make readily achievable alterations. It simply makes no practical sense to require the individual public accommodation, a doctor's office for example, to make readily achievable changes to the public accommodation without requiring the owner to make readily achievable changes to the primary entrance to the building.
H.R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. III, at 55-56 (1990) (Conf. Rep.). And the history behind § 12182(b) further explains that
the reference to contractual arrangements is to make clear that an entity may not do indirectly through contractual arrangements what it is prohibited from doing directly under this Act. However, it should also be emphasized that this limitation creates no substantive requirements in and of itself. Thus, for example, a store located in an inaccessible mall or other building, which is operated by another entity, is not liable for the failure of that other entity to comply with this Act by virtue of having a lease or other contract with that entity. This is because, as noted, the store's legal obligations extends [sic] only to individuals in their status as its own clients or customers, not in their status as the clients or customers of other public accommodations. Likewise, of course, a covered entity may not use a contractual provision to reduce any of its obligations under this Act. In sum, a public accommodation's obligations are not extended or changed in any manner by virtue of its lease with the other entity.
Id., pt. II at 104 (emphasis added). Taken together, these conference reports from the legislative history highlight the implausibility of Kohler's urged construction of the ADA.
Our conclusion today is further supported by regulations, promulgated by the Department of Justice (" DOJ" ), which implement the ADA. Specifically, § 36.403, which speaks to the scope of landlord and tenant obligations dealing with what is known as the " path of travel," implies that a tenant's obligations as to ADA compliance are limited to those parts of the property that it controls:
[A]lterations by the tenant in areas that only the tenant occupies do not trigger a path of travel obligation upon the landlord with respect to areas of the facility under the landlord's authority, if those areas are not otherwise being altered.[4]
Page 1266
28 C.F.R. § 36.403. This reading is further supported by the DOJ's formal interpretation of the regulation in its Technical Assistance Manual, which includes the following scenario:
What if a tenant remodels his store in a manner that would trigger the path of travel obligation, but the tenant has no authority to create an accessible path of travel because the common areas are under the control of the landlord? Does this mean the landlord must now make an accessible path of travel to the remodeled store? No. Alterations by a tenant do not trigger a path of travel obligation for the landlord. Nor is the tenant required to make changes in areas not under his control.
DOJ, Technical Assistance Manual on the Americans with Disabilities Act § III--6.2000 (1994) (emphasis added). " The [DOJ]'s interpretation of its own regulations, such as the Technical Assistance Manual, must also be given substantial deference and will be disregarded only if plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation." Bay Area Addiction Research & Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179 F.3d 725, 732 n.11 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the DOJ's formal interpretation is entirely consistent with the regulation, and we give it the deference it is due.
We hold that neither the ADA, nor our decision in Botosan, imposes upon tenants liability for ADA violations that occur in those areas exclusively under the control of the landlord.[5]
Finally, we reverse the district court's award to BB& B of attorneys' fees.
The ADA allows a " prevailing party" its fees. 42 U.S.C. § 12205. But while prevailing plaintiffs regularly recover their fees, " policy considerations which support the award of fees to a prevailing plaintiff are not present in the case of a prevailing defendant." Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 418-19, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978). Accordingly, " fees should be granted to a defendant in a civil rights action only upon a finding that the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation." Summers v. A. Teichert & Son, 127 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court erred in concluding that eight of Kohler's ten claims were frivolous. We have repeatedly cautioned that district courts should not " engage in post hoc reasoning," awarding fees simply " because a plaintiff did not ultimately prevail." Bruno's Rest., 13 F.3d at 290. This
Page 1267
admonition applies even in cases which are resolved at summary judgment because no " reasonable jury could return a verdict in [the plaintiff's] favor." See Thomas v. Douglas, 877 F.2d 1428, 1434 & n.8 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, Kohler's claims regarding maneuvering space and the liability of a tenant for common areas were not clearly resolved by our prior caselaw interpreting the ADA. Kohler was entitled to bring this suit to seek resolution of these questions. See Gibson v. Office of Att'y Gen., State of Cal., 561 F.3d 920, 929 (9th Cir. 2009) (" Because Plaintiffs raised a question that was not answered clearly by our precedent, we hold that their claim was not frivolous." ). The law grows with clarity for benefit of the public through such actions even if they are not successful.
We also reverse the district court regarding Kohler's paper towel dispenser claim, which was rendered moot by BB& B's voluntary remediation of the barrier. Though Kohler may indeed have litigated the claim without foundation, resolution of a claim via the mooting of any possible relief does not make BB& B a " prevailing party" entitled to fees, as there is no " judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties." Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W.Va. Dep't of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 605, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001).
Kohler's final claim, related to the toilet paper dispenser, was also not frivolous. Kohler alleged that the dispenser was " difficult--if not impossible--for [him] to reach and use" due to its distance from the front of the toilet. The applicable Guideline does require dispensers to be " within reach," though it imposes no requirement that a dispenser be mounted a particular distance from the front of the toilet (only from the floor). 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. D § 4.16.6. Kohler supported his claim by relying on a requirement found in California law, which the district court correctly concluded did not govern an ADA claim. But in this instance, Kohler's claim did not become frivolous simply because he referred to a state law requirement, and we reverse the district court's contrary conclusion.
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to BB& B on Kohler's ADA claims and we affirm as to summary judgment. But the district court erred in determining that any of Kohler's claims were frivolous, and we reverse the award of attorneys' fees. Each party shall bear its own costs.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
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:
Best Western Remagen hotels are listed below. Search for cheap and discount Best Western hotel rooms in Remagen, Germany for your upcoming individual or group travel. We list the best Best Western Remagen venues so you can review the Remagen Best Western hotel list below to find the perfect place.
This site will also provide Remagen, Germany hotels/motels that get similar quality scores of a Best Western.
How should we direct your call?
Best Western Hotel Kaiserhof is in the heart of Bonn, walking distance from Bonner Kammerspiele and Kammerspiele.
With a stay at Best Western Hotel Domicil, you'll be centrally located in Bonn, steps from Bonn City Hall and Old Cemetery.
A stay at Best Western Park Hotel Siegen places you in the heart of Siegen, convenient to Lower Castle and Upper Castle.


text:
As a former innkeeper/owner, world traveler, and frequent B&B/inn guest, I can't stress that Stonehurst is truly a top notch experience. And that is what inns are about – the experience.
First class rooms and amenities, a beautiful setting and convenient location, and helpful, friendly, non-intrusive innkeepers are the key elements found here. Add to that list that you will enjoy off-street parking and very quiet and meditative spaces just off of one of Midtown Atlanta's bustling streets, and your experience will be complete.
You can walk to any number of Midtown ATL's attractions and restaurants but take some time out from the urban scene and sightseeing to enjoy the beautiful gardens of this "green friendly" almost 2/3 acre estate as well as the traditional screened porch – you'll be glad you did!


text:
All Films.All Above Board.NOW INCLUDES TV!
An all-singing, all-dancing, all-action spoof on the blaxploitation films of the Seventies. A female group of sexy, high-kicking bikers set out to discover why members of the public are disappearing, and neither the local all-male gangs or the bumbling police department can get in their way.


text:
A 4Knots Music Festival Video Recap
This year for 4Knots we teamed up with our good buddies at KarmaloopTV to shoot what is known in the industry as "High Quality Video." The KLTV team humped around the Seaport with their gear all day and interviewed acts for us. In exchange, we agreed to rub their feet afterward. Pretty fair deal, all in all. Those longer interviews are coming later this week, but in the meantime, here's a short recap teaser of their day at 4Knots. In it, Kurt Vile gives his best guess as to what 4Knots means, Fat Tony shouts out the Village Voice and a couple of our sister papers, and Parquet Courts tell the unlikely but completely true origin story about how they came to move to Brooklyn and become a "douchey hipster band."
Lil B: The Interview The Complete Guide to Understanding Lil B "Lil B Saved My Life": A Letter About Our 4Knots After Party Headliner
Follow @soundofthecity
Get the Music Newsletter
Keep your thumb on the local music scene each week with music news, trends, artist interviews and concert listings. We'll also send you special ticket offers and music deals.
In Case You Missed It
Upcoming Events
Celtic Woman: Home for Christmas
TicketsTue., Dec. 6, 8:00pm
Kenny G.
TicketsWed., Dec. 7, 8:00pm
Yael Naim
TicketsWed., Dec. 7, 8:00pm
AEG Live presents The Piano Guys
TicketsFri., Dec. 9, 8:00pm
Sponsor Content


text:
Interrobang features the Art, Photography, and Woodworking of Jim Sincock.
Jim focuses on black & white photography for his landscape and still life photography. He mainly works with large format film, wet plate collodion, and handmade gelatin dry plate negatives.
Jim's art ranges from large conceptual photo encaustic and mixed media pieces, to abstract mixed media paintings.
Sticking with the handcrafted theme, much of Jim's woodwork projects are made with old fashioned hand tools and natural finishes. From custom solid board cutting boards, to hand carved spoons and utensils, to Shaker and farmhouse furniture.


text:
MRP: Rs. 37.12 for 1 bottle(s) (100 ML lotion each)
Report Error
Composition for OLSCABLindane(1%)
food interaction for OLSCAB
alcohol interaction for OLSCAB
pregnancy interaction for OLSCAB
lactation interaction for OLSCAB
No interaction found
No interaction found
There is no data available. Please consult doctor before consuming the drug.
There is no data available. Please consult doctor before consuming the drug.
SALT INFORMATION for OLSCAB
Olscab 1% lotion is used in the treatment of scabies (itchy skin condition).
How it works
Olscab 1% lotion belongs to a group of medicines called scabicides. It kills the scabies bugs, head lice and their eggs.
Common side effects
Burning sensation, Numbness, Tingling sensation, Convulsion, Drowsiness, Dry skin, Hair loss, Dizziness, Headache, Itching, Rash, Tremor
SUBSTITUTES for OLSCAB
17 Substitutes
Sorted By
- SCABOMA 1% LOTION(100 ML lotion in bottle)Glenmark Pharmaceuticals LtdRs. 0.71/ML of lotionRs. 71pay 91% more per ML of lotion
- SCABOMA 1% LOTION(50 ML lotion in bottle)Glenmark Pharmaceuticals LtdRs. 0.92/ML of lotionRs. 46pay 148% more per ML of lotion
- GAMASCAB 1% LOTION(100 ML lotion in bottle)NuLife PharmaceuticalsRs. 1.02/ML of lotionRs. 102pay 175% more per ML of lotion
- GAMADERM 1% LOTION(100 ML lotion in bottle)Vilco Laboratories Pvt LtdRs. 0.73/ML of lotionRs. 73.05pay 97% more per ML of lotion
- GBHC 1% LOTION(100 ML lotion in bottle)Menarini India Pvt LtdRs. 0.42/ML of lotionRs. 42pay 13% more per ML of lotion
Top Dermatologists
- Dr. Anuj PallMBBS, MD, PhD, Certification
- Dr. Sangeeta VermaMBBS, DNB
- Dr. Avnish SharmaMBBS, Diploma, Fellowship
- Dr. Ramanjit SinghMBBS, MD, Certification
- Dr. Shuchi SinglaMBBS, MD
Expert advice for OLSCAB
- Do not use lindane to treat repeated scabies attack.
- While applying the solution, make sure your hands are clean and dry.
- Always use gloves made up of nitrile, sheer vinyl or latex with neoprene while applying the lotion, especially when applying to another person.
- Avoid contact with other person, especially babies after applying the lotion on your body.
- Do not cover the affected area of the skin with clothing.
- Do not use lindane lotion within 1 hour of bathing or wet skin.
- Do not apply lindane solution near your eyes. In case of contact with the eyes, immediately wash with water and if needed consult your doctor.
- Do not apply more than the recommended amount of lindane lotion as it may be harmful.
- Avoid if Patients is allergic to lindane or any other ingredients.
- Avoid if patient is Pregnant or lactating women.
- Avoid if Patients has broken, wounded skin or have open sores on the skin surface.
- Do not take if Patients had seizures or fits in the past.
- Do not take if Patients had used lindane solution in the past.
Frequently asked questions for OLSCAB
Q.Is lindane lotion available over-the-counter?
No. Lindane is not available over-the-counter. It is sold only upon the prescription by a registered medical practitioner
Q.Does lindane kill scabies, lice eggs, and nits?
Yes. Lindane does kill scabies, lice eggs and nits. However, if you do not see any effects, do not use lindane more than once and consult the doctor
Q.Is lindane lotion safe?
Lindane is safe when used at prescribed dose and duration as recommended doctor.


text:
31 Mckitterick Street Meeniyan VIC 3956
Email Agent
CAMP AT THE BILLABONG31 Mckitterick Street, Meeniyan
Located within the heart of the Meeniyan Township and offering approximately 3 acres of well drained and productive farmland, this property is a winner from the start.
Offering magnificent elevated views over the township and beyond to the verdant hills of South Gippsland, the spacious weatherboard home offers 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, 3 living rooms, a study and a well-appointed kitchen with walk-in pantry, dishwasher and both gas and electric cooking.
Freshly painted throughout and with new floor coverings, light fittings and ceiling fans, there is absolutely nothing further to spend. Just move in and start enjoying all that this property has to offer.
The home has both town and tank water connected and is connected to the sewer. Eighteen solar panels on the north-facing roof generate 3.6 Kw of power into the electricity grid, ensuring that winter power bills are kept to a minimum.
The 3 acres (approx.) are subdivided into 5 paddocks with a central laneway system for ease of stock movement. Most of the paddocks offer sturdy stock shelters, and the water troughs are connected to both town and tank water. There is also a renovated dam to supply additional water to the property.
A bonus for the astute buyer is an approved plan for a 3 lot subdivision, which will guarantee future capital growth.
Inspections strictly by appointment. For more information please call Peter Bellingham or Irene Walker @ SEJ Leongatha
Inspection Times
- No inspections scheduled
- Contact Agent
Email this agent
Email sent successfully!
Your email has been sent.
Would you like to get The Real Estate Conversation?
Stevens Egan Johnston P/L Leongatha
Leongatha VIC, 3953
Agent Information
More property from Stevens Egan Johnston P/L Leongatha
Meeniyan real estate
Get new properties in your inbox
Real Estate For Sale in Meeniyan, VIC 3956 priced between $390,000 and $720,000


text:
Zucchini With Vinegar and Mint
Total Time
Prep 10 mins
Cook 10 mins
Gourmet Magazine
Ingredients Nutrition
- 2 tablespoons olive oil
- 1 tablespoon unsalted butter
- 2 lbs zucchini, cut into 1/2-inch-thick rounds (6 medium)
- 1⁄4 cup red wine vinegar
- 1 teaspoon dried mint
- Heat oil and butter in a large heavy skillet over medium-high heat until foam subsides, then cook zucchini, undisturbed, until undersides are golden brown, about 8 minutes.
- Turn over and cook until undersides are golden brown, about 6 minutes.
- Add vinegar and 3/4 teaspoon salt and cook, shaking skillet, until vinegar has evaporated. Remove from heat; crumble in mint. Add 1/4 teaspoon pepper and toss.


text:
The Original and Multi-Award Winning TV Craft
Join The Club >>
Members Area >>
Add items to your basket to see applied discounts and Flexi-pay options
Flexi-pay, our interest-free scheme
Thank you for nominating us for 8 awards – we'd appreciate
your vote >>
10% DISCOUNT FOR CLUB MEMBERS - Buy Today for £5.39
LuMoo Tree Decorations
Create and Craft special offers are only available for a limited time, previously recorded videos may contain pricing, exclusivity claims or promotional offers that have expired.
Let your children make their own Christmas tree decorations, a great activity to keep them busy in the lead up to Christmas and then see their delight when they help to decorate the tree with their own creations
Contents: 1x LuMoo Tree Decorations
Your order will be despatched within 3-5 working days. Most deliveries require someone to accept and sign for the delivery to ensure the goods are received correctly. To help you we can arrange for delivery to be made elsewhere.Click here for more information.
We hope you like your purchase, however, if you are not entirely satisfied, your item* may be sent back to us for a refund, provided it is returned within 14 days (unless otherwise specified)
from the date of despatch. *Please note: Exceptions apply. Please click here for more information.
Only £5.99
Club Price £5.39


text:
STAMFORD - ? Things returned to normal in Stamford Tuesday following a bomb scare at a bank.
Police say a suspicious package was found in the parking lot of the Bank of America at 14 High Ridge Rd. on Monday. The bomb squad descended on the scene soon after, and traffic was rerouted.
In the end, the package was determined to be an empty suitcase and posed no danger to the public.
?We did the prudent thing,? said Lt. Sean Cooney, of the Stamford Police Department. ?[We] cordoned off the area, called in the bomb squad and in about 90 minutes they determined it was not a problem.?


text:
We create the conversation. You change America's future.
Nine events across the U.S. will host the greatest minds, musicians, celebrities and you, showcasing a no-holds-barred, 360-degree perspective of key issues ranging from immigration to innovation. Because, if you're going to decide the 2016 election, you might as well have a good time doing it.
July 13, 2016
Port Canaveral, FL
American Innovation
Sponsored by
June 15, 2016
Detroit, MI
Jobs and Economy
May 10, 2016
Asbury Park, NJ
Apr. 20, 2016
Palm Springs, CA
Climate Change
Sponsored by
Jan. 14, 2016
Des Moines, IA
2016 Schedule
Topics and locations for One Nation
For the Record
Sign up for the daily election 2016 newsletter that gives you the 411 with a side of attitude.Sign up
Want to find out more about One Nation, recommend a speaker or sponsor for an event?
Want to find out more about One Nation, recommend a speaker or sponsor for an event?Contact us


text:
Seduc calls 27 teachers approved in Simplified Selection ProcessA relação dos convocados está disponível no site da Seduc.
The State Department of Education (Seduc) convenes 27 teachers approved in simplified selection process (PSS 2016)
A relação com os nomes dos profissionais convocados e a respectiva ordem de classificação destes no PSS podem ser acessadas no site da Seduc na internet: www.educacao.am.gov.br
According to the Secretariat, the 27 Related teachers should attend the headquarters Seduc on Tuesday, day 7 of June. The lotacional service will start at 8 am and will respect the classification order of the candidates on the PSS 2016.
To attend to the Secretariat's headquarters, localizada na Avenida Waldomiro Lustoza, No 250, Japiim neighborhood 2, In Manaus, the 27 candidatos relacionados deverão se dirigir à Gerência de Valorização do Servidor (Gervs) to receive said call lotacional.
documentation required
Candidates invited should go to the specified location, provided with three copies of the following documents readable: ID card (RG); CPF; PIS/PASEP (proof / statement); Voter Registration; Electoral Discharge Certificate; Military certificate (for men); Proof of address (Water or Phone); Current Account Statement (only Bradesco); Enable Proof (Diploma and Graduate History); 2 Photo 3 × 4; plus additional documents (Diploma of Specialization / Master / Doctorate (if there is).


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, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
April 29, 2015
TERRA FOUNDATION FOR AMERICAN ART, Plaintiff,v.SOLOMOLЅчÀ䁉㈀ ARCHITECTS, INC., a Massachusetts corporation, Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on two motions: Defendant's Motion for Rule to Show Cause [ECF 31] and Plaintiffs Motion to Compel [ECF 33]. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants" Motion for Rule to Show Cause is denied, and Plaintiffs Motion to Compel is denied in part and entered and continued in part.
I. Defendant's Motion for Rule to Show Cause
In its Motion for Rule to Show Cause, Defendant Solomon Bauer Giambastiani Architects, Inc. ("SBC") asks the Court to issue a rule to show cause against third parties City Real Estate ("CRE") and Wiss, Janney Elstner Associates ("WJE") for their failure to produce all documents requested in subpoenas SBG served upon them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The Motion also was directed at other third parties but those disputes have been resolved.
SBG was involved in the design of the art collection storage system at the offices of Plaintiff Terra Foundation for American Art ('Terra"). SBG's Answer [ECF 10], at ¶ 4. The gist of Terra's complaint appears to be that SBG breached its contract with Terra because the art vaults are deficient in a number of ways. SBG denies the allegations. Id. at ¶ 5.
The Rule 45 subpoenas SBG served on CRE and WJE seek their entire project files relating to the construction of Terra's office space, including construction of the art vaults which is the subject of the instant litigation. CRE and WJE object to the subpoenas as over broad and unduly burdensome in requiring them to produce their entire project files. Terra's counsel in this case also represents third parties CRE and WJE, and Terra has joined CRE and WJE in objecting to the subpoenas on the ground that the information requested is not relevant. Despite their objections, CRE and WJE represent that they have produced all of their documents "that bear any connection to" the art vaults but have not produced their entire files relating to the whole construction project.
CRE and WJE contend that their entire project files contain a vast amount of documents that have nothing to do with the design and construction of the art vaults. Specifically, CRE represents that it has produced over 11, 000 pages of documents relating to the art vaults. CRE states that there is an additional four gigabytes of data in its files, comprising between 60, 000 and 2, 680, 000 pages, and that it would cost CRE an additional $100, 000 to review and produce those documents. WJE states that it has 4, 500 additional pages that may relate to the construction of Terra's office space that have not been produced. WJE estimates it would cost approximately $15, 000 to go through the additional documents.
Both CRE and WJE argue that they should not have to spend the time, effort and money to review and produce any additional documents because, among other things, they have produced documents relating to the art vaults and all other information is not relevant and/or not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Implicitly, these third parties also seem to be arguing that the burden or expense of producing the requested documents outweighs the likely benefit of producing them. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(e)(1)(D) incorporating by reference Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C). The Court agrees that CRE and WJE do not have to produce the additional documents requested by SBG.
Pursuant to Rule 45, a party is entitled to require a non-party to produce documents so long as reasonable steps are taken to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on the person or entity subject to the subpoena. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(1) and (e)(1)(D). It is the non-party status that is a significant factor in determining whether a request is too burdensome. '"Although discovery is by definition invasive, parties to a lawsuit must accept its travails as a natural concomitant of modern civil litigation. Non-parties have a different set of expectations. Accordingly, concern for the unwanted burden thrust upon non-parties is a factor entitled to special weight in evaluating the balance of competing needs." United States v. Amerigroup Illinois, Inc., 2005 WL 3111972 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (quoting Cusumano v. Microsoft Corp., 162 F.3d 708, 717 (1st Cir. 1998)). That is not to say, however, that any burden or expense is excessive; only when a non-party is subjected to "'significant expense" should the burden of cost be weighed. See, e.g., DeGeer v. Gillis, 755 F.Supp.2d 909, 928 (N.D. Ill. 2010).
Given that CRE and WJE already have produced their documents relating to the art vaults, the Court finds that it would be unduly burdensome and cost prohibitive to require CRE and WJE review and produce additional documents relating to Terra's office space generally. The Court finds that requiring them to expend an additional $15, 000 let alone $100, 000 would be excessive and an undue burden on a third party.
The Court is not persuaded by SBG's argument that it is not fair that Terra's counsel has had the opportunity to look at the additional documents and that SBG cannot review the documents. First, it is not clear that Terra or its counsel actually have looked at the additional documents in the possession of CRE or WJE aside from SBG's ipse dixit. Moreover, just because Terra and/or its counsel may have looked at certain documents that have not been produced by these third-parties is not a sufficient reason to require their production by the third parties without more evidence to demonstrate that they are relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Accordingly, the Court declines to issue any rule to show cause, and SBG's Motion [ECF 31] is denied.
II. Plaintiffs Motion to Compel
In its Motion to Compel, Terra seeks to compel SBG to produce (1) third party documents in a specified electronic format, and (2) certain documents that have been withheld on the basis of privilege. As to the third party documents, Terra argues that SBG is required to produce the third party documents in a specific electronic format, i.e., native and single page black and white TIFF format, along with a Concordance load file -- the same format Terra sought in its Rule 34 request for production of documents that Terra propounded on SBG. The Court disagrees.
SBG propounded several Rule 45 subpoenas on various third parties. Some of the document productions SBG received from third parties were less than 200 documents each so SBG bates-stamped the documents in the manner in which they were received and provided Terra with bates-stamped copies of those third party productions. Other third party document productions, however, were too large to handle in that manner. SBG asked Terra to share the cost to bates-stamp and convert those third party documents into electronic format so that they could be reviewed in a computer database. Terra refused to split the cost so SBG produced to Terra copies of the documents it received from third parties in the format in which SBG received the documents.
The Court finds that SBG is not required to do anything more than it already has done. SBG is not required to incur the expense of converting third party documents into Terra's preferred format. SBG only is required to produce documents it received from third parties in the format in which it received them. Terra was given the opportunity to share the cost to convert the third party documents into electronic format. After Terra refused to share that cost, SBG and Third-Party Defendant Exergen split the cost to have the documents converted into a format for viewing them in their electronic database system. Terra now does not get the benefit of SBG's (and Exergen's) efforts and work product that converted the third party documents to an electronic format compatible with their electronic database. The Court will not compel SBG to do anything more. Terra must bear its own costs to process the third party document into the format it wants. Accordingly, Terra's Motion to Compel is denied as to the format in which the third party documents are produced.
In the second portion of its Motion to Compel, Terra seeks to compel production of two categories of documents: (1) email communications exchanged between SBG's president Larry Bauer and its counsel Eric Howard on which Third-Party Defendant Exergen's president Hank Anthony was copied before Terra filed its complaint against SBG (SBG 1218.003, 1219.003, 1221.002, 1222.002, 1223.002, 1224, 1229, 1230, and 1231) and (2) email communications exchanged between SBG's president Bauer and Exergen's president Anthony on which SBG's counsel Howard was copied after the lawsuit was filed (SBG 1042, 1046, 1048 and 1054). SBG asserts a common interest privilege with Exergen for the documents at issue. Specifically, SBG argues that it shared a "common interest" with Exergen at the time of the communications, and therefore, the communications are privileged and protected from production.
The Court first addresses whether the disputed documents are privileged because the common interest privilege only protects communications that otherwise already are privileged. McCullough v. Fraternal Order of Police, 2014 WL 2514623, at * 5 (N.D. Ill. June 4, 2014). The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications made by a client to his lawyer in which legal advice is sought. Pampered Chef v. Alexanian, 737 F.Supp.2d 958, 962 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (emphasis added). Because "the privilege is in derogation of the search for truth, " any exceptions to the requirements of the attorney-client privilege "must be strictly confined.'' U.S. v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 492 F.3d 806, 815 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Thullen), 220 F.3d 568, 571 (7th Cir. 2000)). "[I]n order for the attorney-client privilege to attach, the communication in question must be made: (1) in confidence; (2) in connection with the provision of legal services; (3) to an attorney; and (4) in the context of an attorney-client relationship." Id. "The privilege is construed narrowly and the party asserting it has the burden of establishing all of its essential elements." United States v. Evans, 113 F.3d 1457, 1461 (7th Cir. 1997) (citing United States v. White, 970 F.2d 328, 334 (7th Cir. 1992)).
It is not clear from either SBG's response to Terra's Motion to Compel or its privilege log that documents SBG 1042, 1046, 1048 and 1054 are protected by the attorney-client privilege in the first place. According to SBG's privilege log, SBG 1042, 1046, 1048 and 1054 are email communications between SBG's president Bauer and Exergen's president Anthony that merely copy SBG's attorney. Based on SBG's privilege log, these emails on their face are not communications made to an attorney nor is it clear the communications were made in connection with the provision of legal services. Courts repeatedly have held that "neither the mere presence of the lawyer's name on a document nor the copying of counsel on an email automatically makes an item privileged." Wierciszewski v. Granite City III. Hasp. Co. LLC, 2011 WL 5374114, at *l-2 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 7, 2011); Steele v. Lincoln Fin. Group, 2007 WL 1052495, at *1 (ND. Ill. April 3, 2007); Bell Microproducts, Inc. v. Relational Funding Co., 202 WL 31133195, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 25, 2002). The Court, therefore, will need to review in camera SBG 1042, 1046, 1048 and 1054 to determine whether they are protected by the attorney-client privilege in the first instance before deciding whether a common interest privilege would apply to these documents.
Terra does not challenge SBG'S underlying claim of work product or attorney-client privilege for SBG 1218.003, 1219.003, 1221.002, 1222.002, 1223.002, 1224, 1229, 1230, and 1231.[1] Based on the description of the documents identified on SBG's privilege log, the Court finds that SBG has made a sufficient showing that SBG 1218.003, 1219.003, 1221.002, 1222.002, 1223.002, 1224, 1229, 1230, and 1231 are protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Therefore, the Court now must determine whether SBG and Exergen sufficiently share a common interest regarding these documents and whether the common interest privilege protects these documents from production.
Although referred to as a privilege, the common interest doctrine is an exception to the rule that no privilege attaches to communications between a client and an attorney in the presence of a third person. See, e.g., BDO Seidman, 492 F.3d at 816; Jenkins v. Bartlett, 487 F.3d 482, 490 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Evans, 113 F.3d 1457, 1461 (7th Cir. 1997). This narrow exception "extends the attorney-client privilege to otherwise non-confidential communications in limited circumstances/' BDO Seidman, 492 F.3d at 815-16. The common interest doctrine extends privilege to communications made in the presence of third parties for the purpose of coordinating a defense strategy or pooling information for common legal purpose. Id. at 816; see also Dexia Credit Local v. Rogan, 231 F.R.D. 268, 273 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (;i"[T]he identity of the interest may be established by showing that the sharing of documents was for the purpose of cooperating in pursuit of a common legal goal"). The parties' common interest must relate to "a litigation interest, not merely a common business interest, " and this shared interest must be identical, not simply similar. Id. Like the assertion of the attorney-client privilege, the party withholding the documents bears the burden of establishing the common interest." Id.
SBG and Exergen had a business relationship in which Exergen performed mechanical engineering services as SBG's sub-consultant in the design of the art vaults for Terra. [ECF 18], at ¶ 1. Prior to the allegedly privileged communications between SBG and Exergen, Terra raised concerns with SBG about the design and function of the art vaults. After Terra raised those concerns, SBG had communications with its counsel and Exergen's president was copied. SBG argues that once Terra communicated to SBG that Terra would pursue legal remedies against SBG for alleged defects in the art vaults, it was reasonable for SBG and Exergen to jointly consult SBG's counsel regarding their mutual concerns about the potential threat of litigation. [ECF 41], at 11.
Terra filed its complaint against SBG on April 25, 2014 [ECF 1], and SBG filed its third-party complaint against Exergen on July 18, 14 [ECF 18]. It is not disputed that SBG currently is adverse to Exergen. Nevertheless, SBG claims that the email communications exchanged between SBG's president Larry Bauer and its counsel Eric Howard on which Third-Party SBG Exergen's president Hank Anthony was copied before Terra filed its complaint against SBG are protected by the work product and attorney-client privileges and they are communications "'in anticipation of litigation and legal strategy." [ECF 33-1], Ex.C. Terra argues that the common interest privilege does not apply here because SBG and Exergen do not share a common legal interest because Terra never mentioned Exergen prior to filing its complaint against SBG and SBG and Exergen are adverse to each other as a result of SBG's third party complaint against Exergen. The Court agrees with SBG.
A recent case in this District, Lislewoud v. AT&T Corp., 2015 WL 1539051 (N.D.
Ill. March 31, 2015), is particularly instructive. In that case, plaintiff Lislewood and defendant AT&T were parties to a 30-year commercial lease, during which AT&T entered into a sublease with third-party defendant Marriott. In anticipation of and following the termination of the underlying lease, AT&T and Marriott attorneys corresponded with one another regarding communications from Lislewood about the state of the premises and potential liability issues. AT&T and Marriott entered into a Common Interest Privilege/Joint Defense Agreement. Ultimately, Lislewood sued AT&T for breach of the lease for failing to properly maintain the premises, and approximately four months later, AT&T filed a third-party complaint against Marriott for indemnification and breach of the sublease. AT&T argued that its communications with Marriott were protected by the common interest privilege, and the district court agreed. 2015 WL 1539051, at * 4. The Court was not persuaded by Lislewood's argument that AT&T and Marriott's common interest was not sufficient and that AT&T and Marriott did not have adverse interests even though AT&T had filed a third-party complaint against Marriott. Id. The district court found that both parties had a common legal interest in AT&T being found not liable because if AT&T were not liable then Marriott would not be liable either. Id.
In this case, the Court finds that SBG and Exergen similarly share an identical legal interest. See Lislewood, 2015 WL 1539051, at * 4 (citing Dexia, 231 F.R.D. at 294) (finding that parties may share "an identical legal interest . . . from different perspectives")). Even though Terra's threat of litigation was directed only to SBG, it certainly was reasonable to assume that the mechanical engineering consulting services Exergen provided in the design of the art vaults potentially could be implicated by Terra's complaints of alleged defects in the work SBG performed on the art vaults. In Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, 251 F.R.D. 316 (N.D.U1. 2008), another district court concluded "when two or more individuals jointly consult an attorney regarding a mutual concern, their confidential communication with that attorney, although known to each other, will be privileged in the controversy of either or both of the individuals with the outside world." 251 F.R.D. at 326-327. Such a privilege applies to any parties that have a common interest in "potential litigation, " and the privilege "is not limited to parties who are perfectly aligned on the same side of a single litigation, rather the party asserting the privilege must simply demonstrate actual cooperation toward a common legal goal." Id. at 327.
Like the court in Lislewood, this Court finds that SBG and Exergen share a common legal interest in SBG being found not liable for the construction work done for Terra, and the Court concludes that the email communications exchanged between SBG, SBG's counsel and Exergen that are bates-stamped SBG "1218.003, 1219.003, 1221.002, 1222.002, 1223.002, 1224, 1229, 1230, and 1231 are protected by the common interest privilege. Accordingly, the second portion of Terra's Motion to Compel is denied in part and entered and continued in part.
Both Terra and SBG seek their attorneys' fees and costs for filing their respective Motions. Those requests for fees and costs are denied. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A)(ii) and (iii); Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b).
For all of the reasons discussed herein, Defendants1 Motion for Rule to Show Cause [ECF 31] is denied, and Plaintiffs Motion to Compel [ECF 33] is denied in part and entered and continued in part. SBG shall deliver copies of SBG 1042, 1046. 1048 and 1054 to the Court's chambers for an in camera review by Friday May 1, 2015. After reviewing the documents, the Court either will rule via the CM-ECF system or set this matter for hearing if necessary.
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:
Results 1 to 2 of 2
- 06-01-2014, 11:18 AM Thread Author #1
- Posts
- 477 Posts
- Global Posts
- 483 Global Posts
HTC Evo 4G LTE Dead Radios - how to test...
My stock Evo 4g LTE was working fine. I unlocked via HTC Dev, achieved S-Off (via Moonshine.io) & flashed "Super Nexus" ROM.
Now voice radio is dead. Can't connect to sprint towers.
My bud who has more experience than me worked with it for several hours & flashed stock kernels, etc. He says that I killed the radio.
Nice... what is the best way to return the phone to 100% stock & test the radios..
He said maybe I flashed a GSM ROM, but Sprint is CDMA, so why would there even be a GSM ROM for a CDMA Carrier/Device? Confused...
Thanks for any tips you can provide...
Sent from my Nexus 7 using AC Forums mobile app
- Posts
- 2,659 Posts
- Global Posts
- 2,668 Global Posts
Re: HTC Evo 4G LTE Dead Radios - how to test...
Did you do a nandroid backup before you flashed?
Sent from my HTCONE using AC Forums mobile app
Similar Threads
Please help w/ "modified" secondhand Verizon Note3. Getting back to stock.By mgftp in forum Verizon Samsung Galaxy Note 3Replies: 7Last Post: 06-03-2014, 06:46 PM
how to set phone to light up screen when i get a notification?By majdi suliman in forum Samsung Galaxy S4Replies: 1Last Post: 06-01-2014, 06:04 PM
Need to remove sim card in a LGBy Nephew Sam in forum General Help and How ToReplies: 1Last Post: 06-01-2014, 04:30 PM
HTC sync issueBy tcseacliff in forum HTC One M8Replies: 0Last Post: 06-01-2014, 10:59 AM
Moving resident/factory installed apps to new deviceBy pingwn33 in forum General News & DiscussionReplies: 2Last Post: 06-01-2014, 10:09 AM


text:
Having undesirable fat in different locations of your body can have a substantial influence on your health and self-confidence. While conventional weight-loss through exercise and diet plan is an excellent way to reduce weight in general, even the very best workouts cannot target issue locations like the tummy, inner thighs, arms, and buttocks. Liposuction is a time checked treatment that is used to remove excess fat from particular locations of the body, enabling an individual to shape and contour their body to their liking. Is liposuction right for you? Find out now.
Pros of Liposuction
There are numerous benefits to this cosmetic treatment, including:
• Right away obvious changes. Unlike standard weight loss, liposuction creates modifications that are right away visible in the body. Some distinction is noticeable immediately, and the desired results are usually achieved in simply a couple of days.
• Proven and safe. This cosmetic treatment has been performed by seasoned surgeons all over the world for years and the strategy has been improved over and again to be safe and effective.
• Recovery time is normally quick. The downtime needed after having this type of treatment is typically much less than what is needed for other types of cosmetic treatments, consisting of abdominoplasty, breast reduction, and more. People who have had the procedure can typically go back to work much more rapidly than they prepared for and can return to living a healthy, active way of life.
• Weight loss can be permanent. With the ideal maintenance methods, the fat that was eliminated during the liposuction treatment will not return.
• Complete control over your body. With liposuction, an individual can have complete control over how they want to look, beyond exactly what traditional diet and workout can supply. Offering people this power over their bodies enhances self-confidence and assistance people feel their best.
While there many advantages to liposuction, there are naturally a few cautions that need to be taken into account before making the decision to move forward with the procedure.
Cons of Liposuction
Prior to having actually liposuction done, it is essential to analyze the potential downsides of the treatment and determine if the advantages exceed the risks in your particular case. Your specialist can assist you find out more about the dangers related to the procedure and can help you decide if progressing is the ideal thing for you.
• Problems with basic anesthesia. Since liposuction is carried out under general anesthesia, the treatment brings the same threats as other type of surgical treatment where basic anesthesia is utilized. Hidden medical conditions may enhance these dangers.
• Unfavorable responses. Bruising, bleeding, and discomfort are all to be anticipated, nevertheless, in unusual cases can trigger more significant issues.
• The prospective to get the weight back. After having actually liposuction done, it is critical to preserve a healthy diet plan and exercise appropriately as suggested by your physician. Failure to do so might lead to getting back the weight that was lost or perhaps a lot more.
There are dangers associated with liposuction, for many individuals, the advantages far exceed them. Educate yourself about the treatment by having thorough conversations with your specialist and think about how liposuction has the possible to affect you as a special individual. Just you and your surgeon can determine if liposuction will provide you with the outcomes you are searching for within your expectations.
Laser Liposuction procedure is a new non invasive procedure to loose unwanted bodyfat in Suquamish Washington
Laser liposuction is a newer, minimally intrusive procedure that includes heating the fat cells to melting point and eliminating the melted fat through a little cannula. The treatment is usually done right in your doctor's office and is an exceptional choice for people who have less than 500 ml of fat to get rid of from any one location. Laser liposuction can be a safe, complementary procedure to weight loss in order to shape the body you have actually always wanted.
Contact a Surgeon in your Suquamish Washington today.
If you're thinking about liposuction as a weight loss solution, it is essential that you discuss your desires with a qualified plastic surgeon in your location. Your cosmetic surgeon will perform a total examination and health history questionnaire to identify if liposuction can benefit you and assist you reach your physical and emotional goals. Call today for an assessment and find out more about how liposuction can assist you accomplish the body of your dreams.