text:
AMU Gameplay Tips and Strategies
- App name: AMU
- Developer: Joe Doucet
- Genre: Simulation
- Release: Apr 30, 2013
Let's play AMU on iOS. In this part of the walkthrough, you will learn more tips and tricks while playing the AMU game on the iPhone.
Gameplay Walkthrough
This page contains AMU video walkthroughs for iOS (iPhone/iPad) called "tales runner" and has been uploaded on Admin official channel at Jun 22, 2013.
Still need help with this level? Here you can ask questions and discuss with other AMU users.
Hit like if this helped you!
Stuck on some levels in AMU? This walkthrough can help you finish the game.


text:
Phone: (289) 320-8250
1238 Dominion Road
Fort Erie, Ontario, L2A 1H7
To view our complete product offer in your area, we suggest you select this RONA.
At anytime you can select another RONA store or a RONA L'Entrepôt/ Home & Garden. The product selection listed will match the selected store.
Brass Angle Waste ValveBrass male boiler drain valve. 1/2 in. With locknut, cast iron handle, extra long straight pipe thread inlet, larger than normal hex with added clearance at hose threads for mounting in.a washing machine box, CSA certified.
Ecological Attributes
Environmental Issues
This product is eco-responsible because it reduces the impacts associated with the following environmental issues:
Click on the icons
to see why this product is eco-responsible
There are no significant environmental benefits at this stage in the life cycle.
There are no significant environmental benefits at this stage in the life cycle.
1238 Dominion Road, Fort Erie,
Ontario, L2A 1H7
Need help? Call us at
© RONA 2016, All Rights Reserved

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Goose Rocks Beach!! August 28- September 4 Available! Everything Provided!(6 Reviews)
The owner has been emailed.
To book this property, you need to complete your booking through checkout on the VRBO website. We can't protect your payment if we don't know you've booked through us. Learn more
This listing was first published here in 2013.
Date last modified - Tuesday, December 06, 2016


text:
Kalihi Visit. Today I came over during the night time again with the Jollibae because she was sick. We came over to try to go get the chicken sotanghon soup but they did not have any more. We were bummed. They should have the soup year round instead of seasonal or something like that. Instead I just got a crunchy chicken sandwich and a spam little big bite just to buy something. The dine in beezyness was about 30 percent.
Friday, March 13, 2016
Kalihi Visit. Today I came over during the night time specifically through the drive-thru. It was going to be the start of spring break and technically I am going to be done with my MBA classes so I decided to get a couple of halo halos for the Jollibae and I. I also got a crunchy chicken sandwich on the side. The drive-thru beezyness was about 20 percent. The dine in beezyness looked like it was around 30 percent.
Friday, March 4, 2016
Kalihi Visit. Today I came again to the Kalihi location this week for dinner after Tekniqlingz dance crew practice. We went via the drive thru route. The drive thru beezyness was about 20 percent. The dine in beezyness was about 40 percent it seemed. Since today is lent Friday, we just got a couple of jolly fries and the egg mayo and tuna little big bites. It was really good. Like I keep on saying each year, I wish that they just keep the two flavors of the bites all year long and not just for lent.
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Kalihi Visit. Today I came over to the Kalihi location for dinner. The drive thru beezyness is about 30 percent. The dine in beezyness was about 60 percent. There was hardly a line. I came here after having a little meeting with my friend Jules in preparation for an unofficial yelp event that we are doing this weekend. Today I just got a chickenjoy kids meal. I was hoping that they would still have one of those Jollibee kiddie bowls and meal set but they are already gone. Instead, I got a little puzzle toy which I guess is ok.
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Seafood City Waipahu visit. It's been a while since I have been to the Jollibee at Seafood City Waipahu. As I was passing by through, I couldn't help but to stop at the location. I saw and revisited about inquiring about the kiddie bowl as a part of the kid's toy for the kid's meal that I saw from the Kalihi location that last time. I inquired again and got a spaghetti kid's meal. I feel that the toy is a pretty good deal. It is only 5 bucks and you get the cool bowl as a "toy." The dine in beezyness was about 10 percent there was hardly a line. It was on an early afternoon so yeah.
Ala Moana visit. I came back again for yet more Jollibee! This time around I got two chickenjoy buckets and a spaghetti family pack. I was getting those items for food for the dance crew's 8th anniversary celebration at Airpark Karaoke and Lounge nearby. The sectional beezyness was about 10 percent and there was hardly a line. I made a phone call in order ahead of time to make sure. It's also been a long time since I have come to the Ala Moana location.
Friday, January 22, 2016
Kalihi visit. Today I came over with the Team Tekniq crew after a performance that we did at the Hawaii theatre. "When in doubt, Jollibee" is the motto for everytime we need to decide on where to eat. We came around closer to closing time. Show some new poster banners up. The first being the chicken dippers aka the chicken "dip 'n strips." There is another one with a new set of weekday mid-week bundle sets and they are all for about 20 bucks. Each bundle set is set with at least a bucket of chickenjoy. I saw that they now have a Jollibee kiddie bowl as a toy with every kid's meal which is pretty cool. I inquired if they still have some but unfortunately they ran out. The drive thru beezyness was about 20 percent. The dine in beezyness was about 30 percent. I had three items: chicken sotanghon soup, jolly crispy fries, and a jolly crispy chicken burger. They were all good and one of the perfect triple threat combos of Jollibee in my opinion.
Friday, December 18, 2015
Kalihi Visit. Today I came over in the morning time to have breakfast here with my Jollibae Nae. It was a great start to begin my birthday day with none other than my favorite place to hang out and go eat! Ever since I stopped my 100 day streaks going to Jollibee, I kinda miss it and just reminisce. Coming here in the morning reminded me of that. I used to go here a lot in the morning time. Anyways, the dine in beezyness was about 10 percent and the drive thru beezyness was about 5 percent. We came here at around 9pmish. We also had a coupe of gigs today to perform to. I had the longganisa breakfastJOY and bae had the tocine breakfastJOY which is the one that is actually my favorite.
Saturday, December 12, 2015
Kalihi Visit. Today I came in the evening time to get some spaghetti and fries. The night before running every Honolulu Marathon that I do, I always get a jolly spaghetti meal with fries as my last carbo load dinner and meal. The drive thru beezyness was about 10 percent. Looks like the dine-in beezyness was about 40 percent. I just went to the drive thru to get my food and enJOYed it back at home.
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Kalihi visit. Today I came back for the second week in a row to have a meal a Jollibee. I came here specifically for the chicken sotanghon soup since I am feeling a bit under the weather. I ended up getting the soup, a side order of steamed rice, chicken crunchy sandwich, and a peach mango pie for the Jollibae who I was meeting up with as well. The dine in beezyness was about 50 percent. They were actually already started to clean up and so when you come into Jollibee Kalihi at the last hour, they only open up half of the table and seating areas. The drive thru beezyness was about 20 percent. The chicken soup goes really well with the rice over it and in it. A side order of steamed rice is a dollar which I do not think is that bad.
Thursday, December 3, 2015
Kalihi visit. Today I came over during the early evening to meet up with the Jollibae. She wanted to come here initially for the Halo Halo but ended up getting a meal but eventually she did get the halo halo to go afterwards. I came over and just got a vanilla twirl ice cream before heading out to dance practice. The dine in beezyness was about 60 percent. The drive thru beezyness was about 20 percent. I noticed that Jollibee Hawaii now has a new look to their menu when you come into the store. I really like it as it gives a more modern theme to everything. It really makes all of the food menu items pop out and stand out. They also brought back the chicken sotanghon soup which I didn't think left but now it is back again I suppose. They also have these new Christmas bundle meals especially suited and catered towards the holidays ranging from different packs from 20 to 50 bucks.


text:
WWE WrestleMania Revenge Tour 2009 - Genf
88,864pages onAdd New Page
this wiki
this wiki
Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you've made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
WWE WrestleMania Revenge Tour 2009 - Genf was a House show of the WrestleMania's tour of Europe, which took place on April 24, 2009 in Geneva, Switzerland.
- Evan Bourne defeats Tyson Kidd
- Brie Bella, Gail Kim & Nikki Bella defeat Katie Lea, Maryse & Natalya
- Montel Vontavious Porter (c) defeats R-Truth and Shelton Benjamin in a Triple Threat Match to retain the WWE United States Championship
- Finlay (w/ Hornswoggle) defeats Mark Henry in a Belfast Brawl
- Jack Swagger (c) defeats Christian to retain the ECW World Heavyweight Championship
- Jeff Hardy defeats Matt Hardy
- The Undertaker & Triple H defeat Cody Rhodes & Ted DiBiase
Also See
External links
|WrestleMania Revenge Tour 2009
Dublin • Dublin • Köln • Glasgow • Straßburg • Salzburg • Aberdeen • Nottingham • Wien • Cardiff • RAW (London) • Cardiff • Smackdown (London) • Liverpool • Birmingham • Glasgow • Newcastle • Belfast • Genf
|WWE House Shows 2009


text:
Sat Tutors in Pecan Grove, TX
Find Private & Affordable SAT Tutoring in the Pecan Grove Area!
University of Texas - Bachelor of Music, B.M. Sound Recording/Pre-Med
University of Houston - BS, Kinesiology
University of Texas - BS, Biomedical Engineering , University of Houston - BS, Civil Engineering
Pomona College - BA, English; Philosophy/Politics/Economics
Furman University - Bachelor of Music, Vocal Performance
The University of Texas at Austin - BS, Computer Science
Rice University - BS, Statistics
Pomona College - BA, Biology and French
Rice University - BA, Sociology; Study of Women, Gender, and Sexuality
Truman State University - BS, Mathematics major, Statistics minor
Texas A&M University - BS, Leadership and Development , Avalon University School of Medicine - MD, Medical Doctorate
University of Texas - B.S/B.S., Chemisty and Mathematics
University of Houston - BS, Biomedical Engineering
Yale University - BA, Economics/ Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology


text:
The world's most advanced electric skateboards.
This hunt is currently in negotiations for a group deal. Click request to get notified when the hunt goes live!
Every day. Everywhere. Get the feeling of snowboarding, surfing, and wakeboarding right outside your door, thanks to electric motors, powerful brakes, and simple wireless control.
An Electric Skateboard that can climb a 10% gradient on hills and run for about 13 kilometers at 30 km/h. A great in between device for commutes. The last 1 Mile vehicle to your destination. The Boosted Single drive was designed for portability.
Manufacture's Description: "We adapted its one-motor system from our original two-motor design and used an upgraded motor for strong power. New electronics are rated for 1000 watts of power and precise acceleration up to 18 mph. The board can climb up a 15% grade and has regenerative braking that charges the battery as you slow down. We lightened the board to 13.5 pounds to make it even more portable than before."


text:
A jury at the inquest into the death of Derek Richards, a 39-year-old father of two, from Croydon who died whilst under section at Bethlem Royal Hospital, a psychiatric hospital in Beckenham, South London, has found that 'systematic failures in training and procedure' by medical staff contributed to his death.
The inquest into Mr Richards' death began on 2 March and concluded on 5 March 2015. It was held in the South London Coroner's Court sitting at Bromley Civic Centre and overseen by Senior Coroner, Selena Lynch. The jury found that the death of Derek Richards, who died on 19th May 2012 of a methadone and diazepam overdose, followed multiple failures by the hospital including inadequate training, lack of communication, poor record keeping and incorrect prescribing of medication.
Mr Richards had a long history of mental health problems and substance abuse. In April 2012 he was arrested and, following a mental health assessment, was sectioned and transferred to the psychiatric intensive care unit at Bethlem Royal Hospital where he remained until his death.
Whilst in hospital he was prescribed methadone in order to manage his drug dependency. In the run up to his death, Mr Richards had asked a number of times for the dosage to be reduced. Mr Richards refused his methadone dose during three separate periods during his admission, two lasting two days and one, five days. Further on one occasion the dosage was lowered as the ward had run out of the drug. The refused doses were not taken into consideration, nor was the fact the deceased would have lost tolerance for the drug, and the range of other medication he was also being prescribed at the time. As a result the dosages were not adjusted accordingly.
The inquest heard evidence from Toxicologist, Dr Paterson, who confirmed that the levels of methadone and diazepam found in the deceased's blood after his death were consistent with the levels prescribed and administered to him by healthcare staff. Dr Paton, a Pharmacologist explained that there needed to be caution when using Methadone and Diazepam together due to their similar effects. She also expressed concern that the deceased was still being prescribed methadone when he had shown no withdrawal symptoms during the periods he was not taking the drug.
The jury determined that Mr Richards' cause of death was methadone and diazepam toxicity as a result of drugs prescribed and administered at Bethlem Royal Hospital. They concluded a verdict of accidental death due to systematic failures in training and procedure, specifically:
Mr Richards' family was represented by Clair Hilder of leading civil liberties firm Hodge Jones & Allen, and Kirsten Sjovoll of Matrix Chambers.
Clair Hilder says: "When Mr Richards went to Bethlem Royal Hospital his family thought that it was the best place for him and that he would be safe there. In fact, as the jury made clear, the hospital did not have adequate training in place for staff, nor were there sufficient systems in place to safeguard those who were prescribed powerful medication. The multiple failures by medical staff ultimately contributed to a drugs overdose, resulting in Mr Richards' death.
Last month the Equality and Human Rights Commission reported they had found that repeated basic errors, failures to learn lessons and a lack of rigorous systems and procedures had contributed to the non-natural deaths of hundreds of people with mental health conditions in detention between 2010 and 2013. Mr Richards' death is another tragic example, and highlights that more needs to be done to avoid mistakes in relation to psychiatric patient's physical health."
Mr Richards' aunt Ms Linda Simmons, says: "It is now almost three years since Derek's death and I am pleased that the failings which occurred at the hospital are now out in the open. I hope that this will help ensure that this does not happen to anyone else in the future. Whilst many changes have been made I am still concerned that the hospital's drug prescription and administration charts are kept separately from patient's medical records, so that missed doses may not always be clear. I also found it shocking that there appeared to be no one to show the Ambulance Service where to find Derek's ward which led to one paramedic driving around the hospital site for approximately seven minutes before finding where she had to be."
All press enquiries to:
Louise Eckersley, Black Letter Communications on 0203 567 1208, email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Kerry Jack, Black Letter Communications on or 0203 567 1208 or 07525 756 599, email: email@example.com
Notes to editors:
Hodge Jones & Allen LLP was founded in 1977 in Camden and has 200 staff based in Euston NW1. The firm practices personal injury, clinical negligence, civil liberties, family law, wills and probate, housing, dispute resolution, criminal defence and serious fraud.
The Civil Liberties team at Hodge Jones & Allen is one of the UK's foremost teams in bringing actions against the police and state authorities for deaths in custody. The firm's solicitors work closely with INQUEST, which works for truth, justice and accountability for families, and campaigns for policy change at the highest level.


text:
Apricot Preserve Nut Bread
Total Time
1hr 20mins
Prep 25 mins
Cook 55 mins
Ingredients Nutrition
- 2 1⁄4 cups sifted flour
- 2 1⁄2 teaspoons baking powder
- 1⁄4 teaspoon baking soda
- 3⁄4 teaspoon salt
- 1⁄3 cup sugar
- 1 cup chopped nuts
- 2 tablespoons melted shortening or 2 tablespoons salad oil
- 1 egg
- 1 cup apricot preserves
- 1⁄2 cup lemonade or 1⁄2 cup orange juice
- Sift dry ingredients into a large mixing bowl.
- Add nuts, shortening, egg, preserves, and juice.
- Stir until mixture is dampened, but not smooth.
- Pour into a greased and floured loaf pan and bake at 350 for 55 minutes or until toothpick comes out clean.
Most Helpful
This bread had a very nice apricot flavor and we loved how the top got a little crunchy! The only substitute I had to make was peach juice in place of orange juice or lemonade. I was anxious to try the recipe and only had the peach juice. Thanks for a great bread that my whole family enjoyed.
I've made tons of quick breads, but this one just didn't make it. It was very bland with barely a trace of any apricot flavor. Also, the texture was not up to par, it was neither cakey nor bready, just mushy.


text:
Ryan Calo is an assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Law and a former research director at CIS. A nationally recognized expert in law and emerging technology, Ryan's work has appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, NPR, Wired Magazine, and other news outlets. Ryan serves on several advisory committees, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and the Future of Privacy Forum. He co-chairs the American Bar Association Committee on Robotics and Artificial Intelligence and serves on the program committee of National Robotics Week.
Apps For Robots: iRobot's AVA At CES
By Ryan Calo on January 11, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Over Christmas, I received a series 530 Roomba, the robotic vacuum cleaner from iRobot. It cleans the floor really well. But that is all it does. This year at the Consumer Electronics Show, iRobot revealed the prototype AVA. It is, essentially, an open robotic platform. Think of it as an iPad with a body. It has no dedicated purpose and, importantly, it has an API and will run software made by third-party developers.
Yes, apps for robots. This is a wonderful development, one that I predicted in a forthcoming essay in Maryland Law Review. As iRobot founder Colin Angle points out, "If you think of the thousands of apps out there: Which iPad apps would be more cool if they moved?" More importantly, would you not be more inclined to buy a personal robot that came with thousands of programs, with more on the way.
The Problems Of Web Surveillance: Some Context For My Quote In The New York Times
By Ryan Calo on January 10, 2011 at 2:45 pm
UPDATE: The New York Times published most of the rest of my comments on Bits Blog. Thanks!
I was quoted in a cover story in today's New York Times as saying, essentially, that law enforcement was "just trying to do their job" in pushing for greater subpoena power. This particular remark was an aside, made if anything to soften the impression that I was overly critical of the government. For instance, I lamented that consumers do not understand the state of the electronic privacy law and spoke about the dangers of dragnet or otherwise excessive surveillance. (Presumably I am one of the unnamed "[e]lectronic privacy and civil rights advocates" that worries "because the WikiLeaks court order gained such widespread attention, it could have a chilling effect on people's speech on the Internet.")
I did not mean to imply that we should not push back against government and in fact praised Google and Twitter for having done so. I did offer that the government's purpose in pushing for greater surveillance power was not to erode civil liberties for its own sake, but in order to protect Americans by detecting and punishing crimes. But the gist of my remarks was that we need more protection, not less. Some of my talking points appear below for context.
Wikileaks As Security Breach
By Ryan Calo on January 4, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Affiliate scholar Marvin Ammori offers eight good reasons why the United States should not prosecute Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. I mostly agree with Ammori's analysis and write to emphasize one point: an Assange trial, regardless of outcome, would help the government gloss over one of the worst security breaches in modern history. And the First Amendment could supply this distraction's brightest fireworks.
Wikileaks: Lessons For Consumer Privacy
By Ryan Calo on November 29, 2010 at 11:20 am
The website Wikileaks recently published hundreds of thousands of confidential State Department cables. These communications apparently reveal the details of conversations with, and personal impressions and assessments of, foreign leaders and diplomats. Many fear that the leak will undermine international relations in profound and unknowable ways. One of the unintended consequence of the leak, however, may be to strengthen the case for a national consumer privacy law.
Browser Snobbery As Objective Privacy Harm (UPDATE)
By Ryan Calo on November 12, 2010 at 2:33 pm
UPDATE: As told to Jules Polonetsky over at The Future of Privacy Forum, Capital One was engaging in "totally random" rate changes that were not related to browser type. On the other hand, according to the Wall Street Journal, Capital One was at one point using [x+1] data to calibrate what credit card offers to show.
The other day, I suggested that the facts of the Clementi suicide may perfectly illustrate why no actual transfer of information is necessary for someone to suffer a severe subjective privacy harm. (Thanks to TechDirt and PogoWasRight for the write ups.)
Just now I learned about an allegation against Capital One that the company offered someone a different lending rate on the basis of what browser he used (Chrome vs. Firefox). A similar allegation was made against Amazon, which apparently used cookies for a time to calibrate the price of DVDs.
Here you have a clear objective privacy harm: your information (browser type) is being used adversely in a tangible and unexpected way. It matters not at all whether a human being sees the information or whether a company knows "who you are." Neither personally identifying information, nor the revelation of information to a person, is necessary for there to be a privacy harm.
Focus on Human Decisions, Not Technological Ethics of Police Robots
Should You Be Allowed to Prevent Drones From Flying Over Your Property?
NO: It Is the Way to Kill Innovation
By Ryan Calo
The year is 1910. Orville and Wilbur Wright are testing their plane and happen to fly hundreds of feet over a stretch of land you own. Could you sue them?
Technically, you could. In 1910, your property rights extended ad coelum et ad inferos—up to heaven and down to hell. Anyone who flew over your property without permission was trespassing.
When a Robot Kills, Is It Murder or Product Liability?
I am a law professor who writes about robotics. I'm also a big Paolo Bacigalupi fan, particularly his breakout novel The Windup Girl involving an artificial girl. So for me, "Mika Model" was not entirely new territory. For all my familiarity with its themes, however, Bacigalupi's story revealed an important connection in robotics law that had never before occurred to me.
Property owners: Get off my lawn, Pokemon!
"Ryan Calo, a University of Washington law professor, said private property owners may adopt a "Pokemon No Go" policy and bar players from physically entering their building or grounds. But he said there's no legal right to compel the game's creators to remove a location from its lines of code.
"It's important to note that the Pokemon are not there on the property," he said. "What's happening is that a particular location triggers the display of a digital monster on your phone. The monster is only on your phone.""
The ethics of using 'bomb robots' as killing machines
"Ryan Calo, a faculty co-director at the University of Washington's Tech Policy Lab who spent 2000 to 2003 investigating claims of misconduct at the New York Police Department, says he's concerned police were allowed to purchase a robot without a defined use for the machine.
"What are the guidelines around this?" he asked. "When you put these kind of tools into the hands of police, you need to be judicious.""
What can you do when Pokémon Go decides your house is a gym?
""This is a kind of a novel problem," says Ryan Calo, who teaches cyber and privacy law at the University of Washington's school of law. Usually, a digital platform isn't responsible for what its users do — whether it's something as mild as posting inflammatory comments on a message board or as extreme as following an explosives recipe on a website. Neither is a game. But Pokémon Go isn't just offering information, it's actively creating a system that encourages people to visit certain locations to participate.
Why It's Legal for Police to Kill With a Robot
"According to University of Washington law professor Ryan Calo, the situation doesn't give rise to any new legal issues, but is unsettling for a different reason: We are okay with cops using lethal force in a justified situation, but we expect them to do so in a familiar way—with firearms. The use of an improvised robot bomb is unsettling in the same way as if the cops had used a knife or dropped an anvil on the shooter.
The Legal and Ethical Ramifications of Letting Police Kill Suspects With Robots
""It is essentially a jury-rigged version of a drone strike," Ryan Calo, a University of Washington School of Law professor specializing in cyber and robotic law, told me. "If they would have been justified in throwing a grenade, then they're likely justified in doing this, which was quite frankly a creative thing."
Exploring Augmented Reality (Past Event)
U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, will convene a hearing on Wednesday, November 16, 2016, at 3:00 p.m. entitled "Exploring Augmented Reality." The hearing will examine the emergence, benefits, and implications of augmented reality technologies. Unlike virtual reality that creates a wholly simulated reality, augmented reality attempts to superimpose images and visual data on the physical world in an intuitive way.
• Mr. Brian Blau, Research Vice President, Gartner
Artificial Intelligence: Law and Policy (Past Event)
The University of Washington School of Law is delighted to announce a public workshop on the law and policy of artificial intelligence, co-hosted by the White House and UW's Tech Policy Lab. The event places leading artificial intelligence experts from academia and industry in conversation with government officials interested in developing a wise and effective policy framework for this increasingly important technology. The event is free and open to the public but requires registration. -
National Security: The Impact of Technology on the Separation of Powers (Past Event)
For more information visit the University of Chicago Law School website.
National Security: The Impact of Technology on the Separation of Powers
Taking Responsibility for One's Own Data Privacy and Security–Is it Possible, and How? (Past Event)
For more information and to register visit the CTIC website.
8:30 – 9:00 a.m. Breakfast and Registration
9:00 – 9:15 a.m.
Welcome and Opening Remarks
Open Data: Addressing Privacy, Security, and Civil Rights Challenges (Past Event)
CIS Affilate Scholar Ryan Calo wil be part of a panel titled "Understanding the Implications of Open Data".
How can open data promote trust in government without creating a transparent citizenry?
Amazon's vision of a drone highway in the sky
July 29, 2015
"What will Amazon's drone highway in the sky look like?
Probably not a drone highway. Amazon unveiled a proposal where low-level air space would be carved out for drones: 200 to 400 feet would be reserved for high-speed transit drones. Below, there would be space for low -speed local drone traffic, and above would be a no-fly buffer zone to keep drones out of manned-vehicle air space, aka flight paths.
Robots run new Chinese factory
July 28, 2015
Robots have been used in factories around the world for decades, often carrying out dangerous or highly repetitive operations. However the city of Dongguan, China, has become home to the first fully automated factory - where the workforce is made of up entirely of robots. Changying Precision Technology will only employ a small number of human staff who will monitor operations of the machinery, but all processes are completed by robotic equipment.
Is this a sign of things to come? Newsday spoke to Ryan Calo, a professor with the University of Washington Tech Policy Lab.
Popularity of Drones Raises Privacy Concerns
May 22, 2015
CIS Affiliate Scholar Ryan Calo on Good Morning America segment "Popularity of Drones Raises Privacy Concerns," many have reported drones with cameras invading their privacy.
Marketplace Tech for Monday, May 18, 2015
May 18, 2015
Ryan Calo, Assistant Law Professor at the University of Washington and an affiliate scholar at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, talks about testing Google's driverless cars.
Listen to the full show at Marketplace Tech.
WeRobot 2015 KEYNOTE: An Evening with Tony Dyson
April 29, 2015
Tony Dyson, noted roboticist and special effects model-maker, and the builder of R2D2, discusses the future of robotics with Professor Ryan Calo of the University of Washington School of Law.


text:
I may not be much of a cook, but I do like to find new recipes, especially when they're healthier remakes of some of my long-time favorites. Sometimes the healthier version becomes a new favorite (see: 100-calorie apple pies or apple-cinnamon waffles), but sometimes not (see: black bean brownies). You can't win if you don't play, right? Right.
You can imagine how delighted I was to find two new-to-me recipe makeover television shows recently, Cook Your Ass Off (HLN, Sunday nights) and Recipe Rehab (CBS, Saturday mornings).
On Cook Your Ass Off (CYAO), three chefs compete to make over recipes for a guest with a specific health quest (lowering blood pressure, losing weight, managing cholesterol, etc.). Most, if not all, of the chefs have overcome a health problem themselves or were influenced by the health of a family member. The judging panel includes a nutritionist, a chef, and the guest with the quest.
There are three rounds of makeovers: Snack Attack, Meal Makeover, and Ideal Meal. For the first two rounds, the makeover dish is submitted by the guest. For example, one guest who needed to lower his cholesterol wanted a healthier version of his go-to quick snack, nachos. The three offerings were chili-spiced black beans & guacamole (no chips), ground turkey taquitos & tomatillo salsa, and lastly, grilled watermelon, feta, & ceviche. Needless to say, no one bought into the idea that grilled watermelon scratched any sort of nacho itch.
One chef is eliminated after the Meal Makeover segment, leaving the other two chefs to create the Ideal Meal built upon two super healthy, if possibly disgusting, ingredients. Think: octopus.
In the end, the winner moves on to some grand finale in the future and will also work with the guest on developing healthier cooking methods.
Recipe Rehab (RR) focuses on teaching families to make healthier substitutions in the kitchen. Two chefs compete to create healthier versions of the families' favorite high-calorie meals. The families then attempt to recreate each recipe in their own kitchens and then choose their favorites based on taste, healthiness, and ease of preparation. I found a sample recipe on YouTube: Barbecued Chicken.
I've only seen two episodes of RR, but it's my favorite of the two shows, so far, and I think it's mainly because the chefs are more focused on remaking a favorite dish in a healthier way rather than replacing it with something else completely. Also, to be honest, the recipes on RR seem more doable for the mediocre-and-happy-being-that-way home cooks, like me. Oh, and I really, really like that they're trying to engage whole families in the process. Hence, the Saturday a.m. airtime.
Have you seen either of these shows? Maybe you have a perspective I haven't considered. Sing out if you do!
As luck would have it, I stumbled across two recipe makeover articles the last few days, which I'll share in case television isn't your thing:
- Recipe Makeovers from Whole Living, you've got to love an article that starts with chocolate chip cookies!
- From Wall St Cheat Sheet: 10 Healthy Versions of Classic Comfort Food Recipes
Bon appétit!


text: Large Porn Tube is a free porn site featuring lot of Compilation videos com. New videos added every day! Free porn: Dirty Scenes Of Trans Copulations and much more this updated many times day. All new; popular; Shemale dating; Japanese Shemales; full-length popular sites. amateur, anal; compilation [porno music] shemale largest tranny tube site in one place. everyday only at aShemaleTube watch pov cock sucking compilation. com Compilation, Cumpilation Videos - Stack website filled with stacked chicks pornhub ultimate xxx it incredible how wild explosive combination perfect female boobs xxl male manhood is! take time watch available the. We have millions our updated quality videos! all top rated most movies, we categories, daily. Voir les vidéos pornos gratuites de sur Pornhub dirtyhomeclips. com com lots and couple, girl, threesome, shemale, wife, couple and. Classer films par Pertinence maximale et voyez meilleurs longs tube-style full length & movies. Tranny for 1000s great clips gorgeous t-girls from around the world Rights Reserved ®© 2008-2015 Trade Traffic Here you can enjoy large database full length sex streaming movies shemantube. Amateur Interracial Tgirl 18 min only chicks dicks. Tagged: interracial, real, homemade, tranny, shemale, tgirl, more tags browse find everything your desires! updated daily! daily categorized more! blowjob, amateur, blowjob| blow job | giving head join community where users share content. best on tons videos, 100% free. Mature Shemales Disclaimer: NewShemaleTube sign up now start submitting own. com fully automatic adult search engine focused on tube crazy tubes. Porn: Welcome to resource dedicated shemales go banana s other categories as well, here apetube. If like unusual hot girls who little secret, then found movies listed page Paris Movies com! hi-def dvd free! com


text:
|Property type
|Minimum Stay
|180 nights
Four bedroom, two bath completely furnished home just a few blocks from Scarborough Beach, one of the most beautiful beaches in Southern New England. Enjoy the waves of the Atlantic and large boardwalk and pavilion area, walk the rocks and fish off Black Point or relax at this house on its deck.
Just bring your towels and linens, everything else is here for you. Your home away from home includes a microwave, coffee maker, toaster, blender, TV with cable, DVD, VCR, washer & dryer, pedestal fans, local phone service, and parking for six cars. There is plenty of living space with a large den with 2 couches and 1 sleeperand four standing fans. Includes outdoor furniture, a gas grille and a hot & cold outdoor shower.
Just minutes from casual and fine dining, shopping, golfing, fishing, kayaking, boating, biking and hiking. Kids enjoy miniature golf, bumper cars, batting cages, go carts and bowling. See a fishing village in operation in Galilee where you can buy lobsters off the boats and enjoy beautiful sunrises and sunsets over the ocean. Have dinner on the docks or buy fresh fish to cook at home.
Ferry from Galilee to Block Island. Spend the day exploring, shopping, biking or swimming. Historic Newport featuring fine beaches, sailing, shopping, cruises, waterfront restaurants and tours of magnificent mansions is just a 20 minute drive as is the quaint village of Wickford. Take the fast ferry to Martha's Vineyard. Drive 40 minutes to Providence to eat at world class restaurants on Federal Hill, tour historic museums and homes on the East Side or take in a show in the theater district. Try your luck, shop, dine or take in a show at the Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods Casinos just 40 minutes away.
Other Activities: Sightseeing cruises, charter fishing, movies, ice skating, shopping, golf, bowling, miniature golf, bumper cars, carousel, casual and fine dining, camping.
|Rate Period
|Weekend Night
Winter 2016-2017
Sep 5 2016 - May 22 2017
180 night minimum stay
|Refundable damage deposit
|Tax Rate
Security Deposit - The refundable security deposit is required (separate from weekly rental rate).
Rhode Island State Rental Tax - 8% tax on all rentals under 30 days as of July 1st, 2015 (separate from weekly rental rate).
Rates and availability are subject to owner approval. Either are subject to change until a reservation is finalized with the deposit received.


text:
View more jobs from this company
The job "Staff Nurse ODP Anaesthetics Job London" has been saved.
I don't have a CV - Guest Apply
Ready to apply?
Please confirm your email to start the apply process.
search results
» See other jobs at this company
» Learn More about Medicspro
» Print
» Save
» Email
Job Overview
Base Pay:
£26,290 - £34,154 /Year
Employee Type:
Other Great Industries
Job Type:
Health Care
Required Experience:
Not Specified
Required Travel:
Not Specified
Send Email Now
CareerBuilder.com's Advice
For your
privacy and protection
, when applying to a job online:
Never give your social security number to a prospective employer, provide credit card or bank account information, or perform any sort of monetary transaction.
Learn More
By applying to a job using CareerBuilder.com you are agreeing to comply with and be subject to the CareerBuilder.com
Terms and Conditions
for use of our website. To use our website, you must agree with the
Terms and Conditions
and both meet and comply with their provisions.
Staff Nurse ODP Anaesthetics Job London
Job Description
Position: Staff Nurse ODP Anaesthetics
Location: London
Salary Range: £26,290 - £34,154 + 20% enhancement
Job type: full time, permanent
If you are committed to delivering excellent patient care and care about career development within one of the London's teaching NHS Trusts which is recognised for excellence in innovation, this is the right position for you.
If you are excited about challenges that you might face working within a busy NHS Trust and development and training opportunities that come along, please contact us today on 0203 195 1696 and send your CV to email@example.com
Registered Nurse or ODP with NMC registration
Relevant working experience
Diploma in Anaesthesia
Benefits of the post:
Opportunity to work within a dynamic environment
Excellent benefits
Tier 2 visa sponsorship available
Access to professional development opportunities
Assistance from your dedicated personal consultant from start to finish of the recruitment process
About MedicsPro:
MedicsPro is one of the UK's leading specialist medical recruitment agencies, contracted to supply medical staff to a wide range of public and private sector clients throughout the country.
MedicsPro offer both Locum and Permanent staffing solutions across all medical areas working with Nurses, Doctors, Allied Health Professionals (AHP), Health Science Staff (HSS) and more.
Refer a Friend:
We are offering a bonus up to £1000 for any referral that leads to a successful placement in this role. Please email us on firstname.lastname@example.com and call 0208 505 6600 ext. 475 for further details.
Job Requirements
Apply Now
Save this job
Thank you.
We'll send jobs matching this to
This site uses cookies. To find out more, see
our Cookie Policy


text:
Dominion of Fu Leng
28,047pages onAdd New Page
this wiki
this wiki
Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you've made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Dominion of Fu Leng was a Mastery 5 maho spell which allowed the Maho-tsukai to seize control of any undead creature. [1]
- ↑ Game Master's Guide; 2nd Ed, p. 129
|This magic or religion related article is a stub. That means that it has been started, but is incomplete. You can help by expanding this article.


text:
The Varsity is one of the top money making restaurants in the U.S. If I recall correctly, it is in the top 10 money making restaurants in the U.S. And it does it sheerly on volume as it's primary customers are students from Georgia State University and Georgia Tech University.
It opened in 1928 selling hamburgers and Cokes to Georgia Tech students and was called The Yellow Jacket. The location and name proved to be too limiting, so it was relocated to a bigger facility and renamed The Varsity to accomodate more than just the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets.
It is a must experience type of location, but remember it is not Haute Cuisine! They do, however, offer TV viewing rooms in addition to their main dining room. It is truly an Atlanta landmark!
Favorite Dish I don't know that I have a favorite dish at The Varsity as I don't go there too often. However their chili dogs and onion rings are staple of the place. And where else can you go to get a pimento and cheese sandwich?
Best hot dogs, slaw, fries, anyone? Head to the Varsity!!!
If you are not in Atlanta, just go to their website -- you will love it!
Favorite Dish Heavy Weight Dog -- imagine a juicy hot dog covered by hot chili and mustard! Yummy! No, not healthy! Yes, very messy!
The Varsity is an Atlanta favorite. The burgers and hotdogs are wonderfully greasy. Try the Orange drink.
Be ready to order before you reach the counter b/c they will literally yell at you if you make them wait.
Always a busy place right across from Ga. Tech
My friend came and picked me up and took me here for lunch. The restaurant has been here since the late 20s and it is a drive-in but it also has counter service inside.
It's very tied in to the local education institutions and the local sports teams.
It's a BIG place, but the A/C wasn't on and it was a hot day.
The wait staff has a kind of cant that they speak and they have a special lingo/slang that they use (you can look on their website to see what it is).
After you order, you find a table to sit.
Favorite Dish They have hot dogs, chili dogs, hamburger, and steak sandwiches, but they also have egg salad and tuna salad. I think I may have either had a hot dog or egg salad.
The Varsity is an Atlanta institution. It was founded in 1928 across the street from Georgia Tech by a Mr. Gordy. Legend says the dean called him into his office to tell him he had flunked out and Gordy told him, "I will become a rich man within sight of your office window." He did in fact leave Tech, although I don't know the circumstances, telling his classmates that he would have $20,000 by the time they graduated. He had $40,000.
There is nothing fancy (or healthy) about the cuisine. Their main claim to fame is hot dogs, hamburgers, fries, onion rings and fried pies. All are delicious.
Favorite Dish My favorites are the chili burgers and onion rings. As I said they are not healthy but they are all freshly prepared. The fries and onion rings are not frozen, but cut fresh on the premises. The food is no more greasy than any fat food and probably less fat than some of the chain burger places.
When VT fixes the upload problem, I will add pics.
If you bad moth this place, the locals may not let you come back to town. The place has been a congregation point for locals coming downtown, and visitors going through. Frank Gordy started in 1928 as a drive-in place, in a small building. It now holds 800 inside and parking for 600 cars. You get in line inside and walk you way down the line.
Favorite Dish Hotdogs with chili is the necessary staple, along with a side of fires-and yea-Cherry Coke. Prices ofr the hotdogs are $1.50-2.25 and hamburgers only $1.50 to $2.60 loaded and double. So the price is right for sure. Quality is -well what do you expect for all the volume they have; it is okay. You need 2-3 dogs or burgers to fill up.
The volume is unbelievable, but they say they can put through 30,000 a day during a Georgia Tech game. A large number of local residents stop by many times when coming to town, and keep bringing new generations.
I went here thinking it would be the biggest drive-in in the world, but really the "drive-in" part is kind of small. The inside is really big though for everyone to eat inside. The food was pretty good. This place was really good considering the price and experience.
Favorite Dish The Orange slush they have is GOOD. The chili-dogs were also pretty good.
OK, everyone has their favorite meal from the big V, but this is the real deal-----
for meat eaters, get a chili steak, a slaw dog, order of rings, and an orange drink or an FO (frosted orange)
Veggies can get rings, cole slaw and some ketchup. :>>>
I live closer to the Kennesaw location which has all the same stuff as downtown except the local folk are different. I also went to UGA and loved the 2 locations (at the time) in Athens.
The main location is--61 North Avenue, downtown Atlanta, right off I-75/I-85 at 10th St.
Favorite Dish cheeseburger with pimiento cheese
The Varsity is an institution which is more of a place to be experienced than one to visit for consumption purposes. The original Varsity opened in the 1930's I believe, and was known for its fast food and fast talking servers, who greeted customers with the now famous phrase, "What'll ya have?" This tradition continues to this day although the operation has expanded.
Much like the movie "The Matrix", no one can be told what The Varsity is. It must be experienced. That's how I started to feel after hearing about it from so many folks in Atlanta. Finally I decided to avail myself of the Varsity experience.
Given The Varsity's popularity and location adjacent to Georgia Tech, its a popular place. Long lines form at the walk up counter as Atlanta's faithful and curious tourists line up for a plate of heavenly grease. The menu consists of the hot dogs and hamburgers which made the place famous, along with french fries and onion rings (all are described by the order takers in Varsity slang, such as "yellow dog" for hot dog with mustard). To appeal to those who'd rather dine at The Flying Biscuit, The Varsity has added salads and chicken sandwiches to its repertoire.
The food here is also pretty cheap, which is probably the reason for many of the repeat customers. And, for those who want the drive in dining experience, you can park at one of the
I was told that the true Varsity experience means a chili cheese hot dog, presumably served with a free pass for a quadruple bypass, which is what I decided to do with the experience of eating a Varsity Dog.
Favorite Dish I opted for the bacon cheeseburger instead, served with a side of onion rings, feeling that that was a sufficient amount of grease.
The food was great. I'd recommend The Varsity over standard fast food fare, but, all in all, it was still a burger and onion rings and nothing more. I think the experience of this place is a better reason to go. Its part of the true Atlanta experience.
The Varsity is the epitome of American fast food. That being said, you know it's going to be greasy, fried, & fattening. But who cares! If you go to only one fast food spot while you're in Atlanta, please go here. Warning: it gets crazy crowded at times & it's in downtown (& it's a tourist spot) so it's best to go in the daytime. This place gets a huge crowd whenever Georgia Tech (located across the interstate bridge) has a football or basketball game.
Favorite Dish Chili dog, it's so good & bad for you. Only eat one a year :-)
Even though you can take-away, or dine in at The Varsity, you definiately should choose the Drive-In solution, as it gives you a true, real American experience in the South, in the middle of Atlanta, GA.
You drive your car in the designated area of the Parking lot, order through your window and get all your food from the guys walking around the cars on a plate, that they will install on your rolled down side window.
You shouldn't drive away, but eat your food there, in your car - this is America...
Favorite Dish The food is not a long remembered culinary experience, but it's eatable every once in a while if you live close, or once for the rest of the surrounding experience if you're on the road and just drive by.
I had a chili-cheese dog and a chili-cheese burger, with onion rings to go on the side. All servings were not relatively small as you can see on the picture as well. I chose to drink a large Chocolate shake, but of course in the shadow of the very close Coca Cola Company Building you should probably opt for Coke if you want the real American experience, they are partners since 1928 - when The Varsity was opened. Or go for the strange Varsity specialty, the orange drink if you're really brave...
Nothing destroys the fun of a trip faster than stomach/digestion problems.
Avoid this restaurant.
The VT recommendations for this restaurant are primarily given by locals - living in/near Atlanta.
Favorite Dish Avoid the greasy food. Avoid the long lines.
Take photos of this historic spot, but don't waste valuable time or risk your health.


text:
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Get Started
Already have an account? Log in here
Only show results serving Virginia? Ok
Related terms for "electroacoustic spectrometer ":
spectrometer companies
Dispersion Technology Inc., was established in 1996 for developing analytical instrumentation suitable for characterizing concentrated complex liquid systems, such as slurries, pharmaceuticals, cement, ceramics, paints, emulsions, and many more. Since that time we have designed and are currently marketing worldwide a family of such instruments that are based on ...
based in Bedford Hills, NEW JERSEY (USA).
Houston Analytical Systems Company is your best source for laboratory, environmental, industrial hygiene, safety, PMI, process control and personal monitoring analyzers and equipment in the Texas Gulf Coast and Mexico. We provide broad market coverage, excellent product and application knowledge, and superior customer service for all your analyzer needs.
based in Houston, TEXAS (USA).
Project Automation S.p.A. is the name taken in April 1999 by Philips Automation S.p.A.. Formed in 1987, the latter had taken over the Environmental, Industrial and Civil Automation Business Units of the Philips group's Industrial & Electro-Acoustic Systems Division. They subsequently acquired the `Traffic` Business Unit too. Today Project Automation is a leading name in ...
based in Monza (MB), ITALY.
Custom Solutions - Multipurpose Mobile Laboratories - Competence in Nuclear Industry, Chemistry and etc. What we offer our customers is a wide range of test, measurement and analysis equipment, systems and integrated solutions for radiation detection, non-destructive examinations, radiological characterization of radioactive waste, radiation protection and ...
based in Vilnius, LITHUANIA.
For over 40 years, Electro Rent Corporation has been providing economical solutions for short term testing applications. Choose from hundreds of models in our inventory, including environmental, electrical and non-destructive testing products from major manufacturers such as RAE Systems, FLIR, Thermo Electron and Testo. All are available for same-day shipment to your ...
based in Van Nuys, CALIFORNIA (USA).
About ECO Environmental The team at ECO Environmental specialise in providing environmental monitoring and sampling equipment to today`s environmental scientist. Whether you work for an Environmental Consultancy, Mining Company, Government, an Educational Institution or a Catchment Group, ECO have the comprehensive knowledge, expertise and equipment you require to get ...
based in Perth, AUSTRALIA.
EnviroRentals is committed to provide the largest selection of equipment to test your Inmosphere - Indoor Environment Quality and Industrial Hygiene Monitoring instruments. We have changed our focus to the indoor environmental monitoring to match our parent company - Gasonic Instruments Inc who is now the largest Authorized Honeywell distributor of permanent gas monitors ...
based in Calgary, ALBERTA (CANADA).
Need help finding the right suppliers? Try XPRT Sourcing. Let the XPRTs do the work for you
Join our growing community of environmental professionals who are currently subscribed to weekly newsletters, product alerts, job alerts, and our monthly event updates and article newsletters. Stay up-to-date with the global environmental industry. Sign up for one or all of our free newsletters and alerts today.
Past issues
The personal data that you provide is subject to our Privacy Policy.
Thank you for subscribing to our eBulletins
You can modify your subscriptions at any time by logging into your Environmental XPRT account.
Minimum 250 characters
Already have an account? Login here


text:
Attaquer Bandits Kit - Mens - Mens - Road Bike Shop
Road Bike Shop
Product Search Results For "Attaquer Bandits Kit - Men's - Men's"
|Attaquer All-Day Bib Shorts - Men's
The Attaquer Men's All-Day Bib Shorts keep you comfortable through day-long excursions with a dose of classic style. These bib short provide form-fitting support, with a softer, less compressive feel than Attaquer's Race Bibs for exceptional comfort through long, high-elevation rides and jaunts...
|Attaquer CORE Bib Shorts - Men's
By now, you've probably come to expect cycling apparel from Attaquer to jump off the screen and shout. It's true, that many of the Australian manufacturer's designs are quite flashy. What you may not know, however, is that Attaquer has a more subdued line of clothing--its CORE collection--of...
Price: $229.95
|Attaquer CORE Jersey - Short Sleeve - Men's
Add a flash of classic style to any ride with the Attaquer CORE Jersey. Known for its eye-catching patterns, Attaquer has toned it down with the CORE Jersey with retro-inspired minimalist graphics that stand out just as well as any bright print. Attaquer doesn't sacrifice quality for style with...
Price: $169.95
|Attaquer Cycling Socks - Men's
There's nothing standard about Attaquer's Cycling Socks. As with everything the Australian label releases, these socks were designed by a collection of street artists and fashion designers for a fresh spin on this kit-completing essential. The socks feature a generous 18cm-tall cuff composed from...
Price: $22.95
|Attaquer Race Bib Shorts - Men's
Placing a premium on go-fast functionality, the Attaquer Men's Race Bib Shorts feature an ultra-slim, compressive design that hugs your body for maximum support. Primarily designed for racing, compression Lycra stabilizes key muscle groups for maximum endurance through crit races and staged...
|Attaquer Socks - Men's
Attaquer Socks feature embedded silver yarn technology for natural antimicrobial properties and lasting freshness on spirited rides. Moisture-wicking fabric keeps your feet pleasantly cool and dry when you're pushing through stifling summer temperatures and grinding it out on exhausting climbs.
|Biemme Sports Mapei Vintage Kit Jersey - Men's
We'd call the team celebrated by the Biemme Mapei Vintage Kit Men's Jersey many things -- big, bold, wealthy, and quite possible the greatest in the history of professional cycling -- but we wouldn't call it surpassed since its untimely disbanding in 2002. Call us nostalgic, but that's just the...
Price: $98.95
|Biemme Sports Mercatone Uno Vintage Kit Jersey - Men's
If you catch yourself waxing poetic about the days of Cipo, il Pirata, and Mercatone Uno's dominance in the pro peloton on a regular basis, we'd imagine you were just the person Biemme Sports had in mind when creating its Mercatone Uno Vintage Kit Men's Jersey. Allowing you to show your forever...
Price: $98.95
|Biemme Sports Telekom Vintage Kit Jersey - Men's
Having a T-Mobile kit in the reserves of your cycling wardrobe for special occasions is something we at Competitive support wholeheartedly. So, you can imagine how excited we were when we saw Italian apparel brand Biemme Sports taking T-Mobile fandom to the next level with its men's Telekom...
Price: $98.95


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.
California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division
August 27, 2014
WILLIAM PARRISH et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,v.LATHAM & WATKINS et al., Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BC482394, James R. Dunn, Judge.
Page 265
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 266
Page 267
venatti, Michael J. Avenatti, Scott H. Sims; Panish, Shea & Boyle, Brian J. Panish, Adam K. Shea, Kevin R. Boyle; Esner, Chang & Boyer and Stuart B. Esner for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
McKool Smith Hennigan, J. Michael Hennigan and Michael Swartz for Defendants and Respondents.
In a prior litigation, FLIR Systems, Inc. and Indigo Systems Corporation (collectively, FLIR) brought suit against their former employees,
Page 268
William Parrish and E. Timothy Fitzgibbons (collectively, Former Employees) for, among other things, misappropriation of trade secrets (the underlying action). Former Employees were successful in defeating the underlying action. Moreover, they obtained a ruling that the misappropriation of trade secrets claim had been brought against them in bad faith, which resulted in an order that FLIR pay Former Employees their attorney fees and costs (Civ. Code, § 3426.4) in an amount exceeding $1.6 million. That order was affirmed on appeal. (FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Parrish (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1274 [95 Cal.Rptr.3d 307].) Thereafter, Former Employees brought the instant malicious prosecution action against the attorneys who had represented FLIR in the underlying action, Latham & Watkins LLP, and Attorney Daniel Schecter (collectively Latham). Latham moved to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the so-called anti SLAPP statute.[1] The motion was granted on the basis that Former Employees were unable to establish a probability of prevailing on their malicious prosecution action, because the action was untimely brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6. Former Employees appeal, arguing that Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 is not the appropriate statute of limitations for a malicious prosecution action, and that they have presented sufficient evidence that they otherwise have a probability of prevailing. We agree and reverse.[*]
1. Underlying Facts
The trade secrets at issue involve the manufacture of a type of microbolometer, which is a device for detecting infrared radiation, used in connection with infrared cameras, night vision and thermal imaging. Specifically, the case involves the manufacture of "uncooled, TEC-less, vanadium oxide microbolometers."[2]
Former Employees were shareholders and officers of Indigo, which was in the microbolometer business. In 2004, FLIR acquired Indigo, acquiring, among other things, Indigo's intellectual property. Former Employees continued to work for Indigo (and, therefore, FLIR). Former Employees left the
Page 269
employ of FLIR on January 6, 2006, when their contracts expired. In 2004, while working for FLIR, Former Employees had presented FLIR with a business plan involving outsourcing the manufacture of microbolometers. When they left FLIR, Former Employees embarked on a business plan for a new business which was, allegedly, similar to the business plan they had presented to FLIR. FLIR believed that the business plan which had been presented to it by Former Employees during their employment was, in fact, FLIR's intellectual property, and therefore could not be misappropriated by Former Employees for their own business purposes. FLIR also believed that the business envisioned by the business plan relied on intellectual property which belonged to FLIR.
FLIR and Former Employees had several meetings, in which Former Employees attempted to assure FLIR that they had no intention of using FLIR's intellectual property in their new business venture. They also explained to FLIR that the business plan they were using had been created by Former Employee Fitzgibbons before he had even joined Indigo, and was therefore not FLIR's intellectual property.
2. The Underlying Action is Filed by Latham
On June 15, 2006, FLIR, represented by Latham, filed the underlying action against Former Employees, alleging seven causes of action, including misappropriation of trade secrets. That cause of action alleged, on information and belief, that Former Employees had been soliciting venture capital for their new business by presenting a business plan which misappropriated FLIR's confidential information and trade secrets.[3] The complaint alleged that Former Employees had "sought to assuage FLIR's concerns, by representing that they would not use any of... FLIR's confidential trade secrets, would license intellectual property from established owners, [and] would develop a 'rigorous IP filtering procedure.' These assurances were belied by Fitzgibbons'[s] claim that he had conceived the idea for the new business before joining Indigo, even though he had joined the company seven years earlier in 1999."
3. Latham Changes the Theory of the Case
By the time the underlying action was filed, Former Employees were deep in negotiations with a third party, Raytheon, to proceed on a new business venture. The business venture would involve Former Employees obtaining licenses for Raytheon's intellectual property in the area of microbolometer
Page 270
manufacture. It is not entirely clear from the record how similar the anticipated business venture with Raytheon was to the business plan which formed the basis of the complaint in the underlying action.[4] In any event, once Raytheon learned of the underlying action, it broke off all further negotiations with Former Employees.
Letters were exchanged between counsel for Former Employees and Latham. On July 16, 2006, Former Employees sought to prove to Latham that their business plan had, in fact, been formulated by Fitzgibbons prior to joining Indigo, by sending Latham a copy of the business plan which Fitzgibbons had submitted to another third party (Boeing), prior to joining Indigo. Counsel for former employees confirmed to Latham that their then-current business plan did not involve the use of FLIR's intellectual property but, instead, depended on licensing the necessary intellectual property from a third party. By letter of August 15, 2006, counsel for Former Employees explained to Latham that Former Employees intended to license a complete technology package, including microbolometer fabrication techniques, from a major aerospace company. By letter of September 5, 2006, counsel for Former Employees identified the third party as Raytheon, and pointed out that Raytheon had been in the industry longer than FLIR or Indigo.
By letter of October 12, 2006, Latham responded to the revelation of Raytheon as the third party in question. Latham stated, "We note [Former Employees'] contention that the Raytheon technology package provides all the needed intellectual property and know-how for [Former Employees] to engage in high-volume production of [vanadium oxide] microbolometers. While that may be the case, it begs two critical questions related to FLIR's intellectual property." First, Latham asked if the "Raytheon package include[s] a design for TEC-less operation, " because FLIR possessed some patents and trade secrets in this area.[5] Second, Latham asked how long it would take Former Employees "to achieve a viable design and production process" for the TEC less vanadium oxide microbolometers without relying on FLIR's trade secrets. Latham stated that it was informed that Raytheon did
Page 271
not have a then-viable design, and Latham therefore believed that, absent reliance on FLIR's intellectual property, it would take Former Employees at least three years to bring a viable TEC-less vanadium oxide microbolometer to market.
We emphasize here the complete change in theory on FLIR's cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets. As pleaded in the complaint in the underlying action, FLIR had alleged that Former Employees' business plan itself was FLIR's trade secret, as it allegedly had been developed by Former Employees when at FLIR for FLIR's benefit – and that Former Employees' assertions that the plan had been independently developed by Fitzgibbons prior to joining Indigo were unworthy of belief.[6] But Latham had been given documentation showing that the business plan had, in fact, been developed prior to Fitzgibbons joining Indigo, and had further been told that Former Employees were negotiating to license technology for their new venture from Raytheon. Latham now pursued the theory that if Former Employees' new business venture involved the mass production of TEC-less vanadium oxide microbolometers to go to market within three years, Former Employees must be planning to use FLIR's intellectual property, because Latham was informed that such production could not be achieved in that time frame[7] without the use of FLIR's intellectual property.[8]
4. The Motion for Summary Judgment in the Underlying Action
In December 2006, Former Employees moved for summary judgment in the underlying action. FLIR's opposition to the motion argued that "there is irrefutable evidence that [Former Employees] planned to launch [their new] business using [FLIR]'s proprietary designs and manufacturing processes for infrared components, and that they could only achieve their stated goals using
Page 272
[FLIR]' sintellectual property...."[9] This evidence consisted, largely, of two brief expert declarations. The first, from Dr. Dean Neikirk, stated that, based on his experience and background, he is "not aware of any third party in the infrared market, other than Plaintiff FLIR, that has the requisite technology and capability to produce a high volume of bolometers at yields and costs sufficient to support" Former Employees' business plan. He stated that he knows of no "public domain literature demonstrating that any third party has the ability [to] produce a high volume of TEC less [vanadium oxide] bolometers at a low cost." He therefore concluded that Former Employees "could not pursue" their business plan without the use of FLIR's trade secrets. The second expert, Daniel Murphy submitted a similar declaration.[10] At trial, both experts explained that their opinions were based only on public domain information regarding technology held by third parties; they did not consider private technology third parties may possess. While this limitation might not render the experts' declarations affirmatively false, it utterly undermined their value in establishing the point for which Latham offered them. Latham had argued that the expert declarations established that no party other than FLIR had the necessary technology to meet the specifications of Former Employees' business plan; yet the expert declarations omitted all non-public domain technology from their consideration.
The trial court denied Former Employees' motion for summary judgment.[11] First, the court concluded that Former Employees failed to sustain their burden of proof. The court explained, "[Former Employees] have made a compelling argument that they are entitled to judgment at this stage. Nonetheless, the concepts involved in this action are highly technical. Following a review of the [1999, 2004, and recent versions of the business plan], the court is unable to find as a matter of law, for purposes of this
Page 273
motion only, that [FLIR] own[s] none of the concepts for [Former Employees'] new business, that nothing in the... business plan made use of [FLIR]'s proprietary confidential information, intellectual property, or work product, or that all concepts in the [business] plan were identical to those in the 1999 plan." The court further stated, "Even if defendants had sustained their burden of proof on the motion, plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence, for example with the Neikirk and Murphy declarations, to raise a triable issue as to misappropriation of trade secrets."
5. The Former Employees' Victory at Trial
The case proceeded to a bench trial, before the same judge who had denied the summary judgment motion. At the time of trial, Former Employees requested a finding that the action was brought and pursued in bad faith, and an award of reasonable attorney fees, under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA; Civ. Code §3426 et seq.). After trial, the court issued a lengthy statement of decision, denying FLIR relief and awarding Former Employees their attorney fees.
The court denied relief to FLIR on the basis that FLIR's complaint "rested on concern and speculation that Defendants would, in the future, misappropriate trade secrets if [Former Employees] started a new, competitive company." The court explained, "California law prohibits injunctions based on a former employer's concern and speculation that a departing employee might commit future trade secret misuse. The 'inevitable disclosure' theory is not followed by California Courts."[12] While the court conceded that Former Employees' conduct had "raised a reasonable suspicion that they might misuse [FLIR's] trade secrets, " the court concluded that a reasonable suspicion is not a basis for relief. FLIR could only prevail if it established actual misappropriation or a threat of imminent misuse of its trade secrets. The argument that Former Employees might misappropriate trade secrets in the future did not support relief; it would only support an argument under the rejected " 'inevitable disclosure' " theory.
As to Former Employees' request for attorney fees, the court noted that its earlier denial of the summary judgment motion did not preclude it from
Page 274
finding bad faith. The court explained, "[Former Employees'] request for a finding of bad faith was not at issue on the motion for summary judgment. The Court had not heard all the evidence or considered witness credibility. The denial of the motion was not a ruling on whether [FLIR] initiated or maintained the lawsuit in bad faith." Turning to the merits of the attorney fee request, the court concluded that bad faith is only established by objective and subjective bad faith. Objective bad faith is "examined by whether the facts indicate that the accusation was specious under the elements of the UTSA claim." Subjective bad faith is "examined by whether the circumstances indicate that the plaintiff knew or was reckless in not knowing that the claim lacked merit." Considering these factors, the court concluded that FLIR "initiated and continued to pursue this action against [Former Employees] in bad faith and primarily for the anticompetitive motive of preventing [Former Employees] from attempting to create a new business in competition with [FLIR]." It concluded that FLIR had been "unwilling to take the risk that [Former Employees] might be able successfully to compete without misuse of [FLIR's] trade secrets."
The court specifically found that FLIR's suspicions regarding Former Employees "were not sufficient to justify the filing of this lawsuit on June 15, 2006, or the maintenance of the lawsuit through trial in December 2007." The court stated that the case was initiated and pursued in bad faith in that the legal theory supporting the case was inevitable disclosure, which is not supported by California law. The court also identified several specific facts which supported its conclusion of bad faith, including that FLIR "stated that [it] had suffered damages without supporting evidence, and did not withdraw the claim for actual damages until the spring of 2007." Additionally, the court stated that FLIR "did not have a sufficient basis to initiate and maintain the lawsuit and failed to take reasonable measures to allay [its] fears by learning more about [Former Employees'] plans. Three of [FLIR's] witnesses testified that they did not know at the time of the June 2006 filing of the lawsuit that [Former Employees] planned to work with Raytheon, on a non commercial military business model, and that, had they known such facts, their concerns regarding [Former Employees] would have been allayed." Former Employees were awarded over $1.6 million in attorney fees.
6. The Judgment and Attorney Fee Award are Affirmed
FLIR appealed the judgment and the attorney fee award. The Court of Appeal affirmed. (FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Parrish, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 1274.) In affirming the attorney fee award, the court stated, "As we shall explain, [FLIR] does not appear to appreciate the trial court's factfinding power and its discretionary power to award attorney fees and costs to curtail a bad faith claim of trade secret misappropriation." (Id. at p. 1276.) The court
Page 275
specifically rejected FLIR's claim that the denial of Former Employees' motion for summary judgment estopped the court from finding bad faith. (Id. at p. 1282.) The Court of Appeal noted that the trial testimony of FLIR's experts undermined their declarations, and concluded that the trial court had denied summary judgment "because it had not heard all the evidence or considered witness credibility." (Id. at p. 1283.) Ultimately, the Court of Appeal concluded that "[t]he trial court reasonably inferred that [FLIR] knew there was no misappropriation or threatened misappropriation of trade secrets before the summary judgment motion was argued." (Id. at p. 1283.)
7. The Instant Action
On April 6, 2012, Former Employees filed the instant malicious prosecution action against Latham.[13] They alleged that Latham brought and pursued the underlying action with malice and without probable cause. They specifically alleged that the action was pursued on the theory that Former Employees would misuse trade secrets in the future, even though the legal basis for that theory (inevitable disclosure) was discredited. Instead, Former Employees alleged, Latham brought the action knowing that FLIR had an anti-competitive purpose in bringing it.
8. Latham's Anti-SLAPP Motion
On May 14, 2012, Latham filed its anti-SLAPP motion. Latham argued, and Former Employees do not dispute, that the malicious prosecution action arises out of Latham's protected petitioning activity and is therefore the proper subject of an anti SLAPP motion. The issue in this case is whether Former Employees can establish, as required by the statute, that they have a probability of prevailing on their complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).)
To prevail on a malicious prosecution cause of action, the plaintiff must establish favorable termination on the merits, lack of probable cause, and malice. (Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 660, 684 [170 Cal.Rptr.3d 431] (Roger Cleveland Golf).) Latham argued that Former Employees would be unable to establish a probability of prevailing on their action for two reasons: (1) the action is untimely under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6;[14] and (2) the trial court's denial of
Page 276
summary judgment in the underlying action establishes that Latham brought the underlying action with probable cause as a matter of law.[15]
Former Employees opposed the motion. First, they argued that Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 is not the appropriate statute of limitations and that, under the appropriate statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1, [16] the action was indisputably timely. Second, Former Employees argued that they could establish that the underlying action was brought by Latham without probable cause. Specifically, they argued that there were several reasons why the trial court's denial of summary judgment did not mandate a finding of probable cause, including that the trial court's later finding of bad faith undermined the value of the denial of summary judgment in this context. Former Employees also argued that, consideration of the evidence independently (regardless of any trial court rulings) gives rise to an inference of lack of probable cause.
The trial court granted Latham's anti-SLAPP motion, on the basis of the statute of limitations. The trial court expressly did not address the arguments relating to probable cause and the effect of the trial court's rulings. Former employees filed a timely notice of appeal. Latham was awarded its attorney fees and costs, as the prevailing party on the anti-SLAPP motion. Former employees filed a second notice of appeal, from this order.
The initial issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in concluding the action was untimely under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6. While this appeal was pending, we resolved Roger Cleveland Golf, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at page 668, in which we concluded that "the applicable statute of limitations for malicious prosecution is [Code of Civil Procedure] section 335.1, irrespective of whether the party being sued for malicious prosecution is the former adversary... or the adversary's attorneys.... " As Latham concedes the action is timely under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1, and we have no intention of reversing the position taken in Roger Cleveland Golf, the trial court's rationale for granting the anti-SLAPP motion no longer applies.
The parties thus turned their attention to the alternative basis on which Latham pursued its motion, whether Former Employees have established a probability of prevailing, particularly with respect to the element of lack of
Page 277
probable cause. Latham argues that the trial court's denial of summary judgment in the underlying action establishes probable cause under the so-called interim adverse judgment rule. Former Employees argue that the interim adverse judgment rule does not apply given the trial court's subsequent rulings, and also that the evidence independently establishes a probability of prevailing on the element of lack of probable cause. We agree with Former Employees and therefore reverse.
1. Standard of Review
"[T]he issue on appeal is whether [the malicious prosecution plaintiff] presented evidence in opposition to [the malicious prosecution] defendants' anti-SLAPP motions that, if believed by the trier of fact, would be sufficient to support a judgment in his favor. This question is one of law, and we review the trial court's decision de novo. Citation.] In doing so, we 'consider[] the pleadings and evidentiary submissions of both the plaintiff and the defendant [citation]; though [we do] not weigh the credibility or comparative probative strength of competing evidence, [we will] grant the motion if, as a matter of law, the defendant's evidence supporting the motion defeats the plaintiff's attempt to establish evidentiary support for the claim.' [Citation.]" (Plumley v. Mockett (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1047-1048 [79 Cal.Rptr.3d 822].)
2. The Statute of Limitations Does Not Bar This Action
Latham prevailed on its anti-SLAPP motion on the theory that Former Employees could not establish a probability of prevailing on the basis that this action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6. While there is some authority supporting the conclusion that Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 applies to malicious prosecution actions against attorneys, we disagreed with that authority in Roger Cleveland Golf, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at page 668. Considering the statutory language, the legislative history, the applicable public policy, and the interests of interpreting a statute to avoid absurd results, we concluded that Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 does not apply to malicious prosecution actions. (214 Cal.App.4th at p. 677.) Latham agrees that Former Employees' malicious prosecution action is timely when considered with respect to the two-year statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. We therefore turn to the alternative basis on which Latham argued Former Employees could not establish a probability of prevailing: the lack of probable cause element of malicious prosecution.
Page 278
3. Probable Cause
"To establish a cause of action for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the underlying action was (1) commenced by or at the direction of the defendant and pursued to a legal termination in the plaintiff's favor; (2) brought without probable cause; and (3) initiated with malice. [Citations.] Probable cause is a legal question to be resolved by the court; malice is a factual question to be resolved by a jury. [Citations.] [¶] Probable cause is a low threshold designed to protect a litigant's right to assert arguable legal claims even if the claims are extremely unlikely to succeed. '[T]he standard of probable cause to bring a civil suit [is] equivalent to that for determining the frivolousness of an appeal [citation], i.e., probable cause exists if "any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable." [Citation.] This rather lenient standard for bringing a civil action reflects "the important public policy of avoiding the chilling of novel or debatable legal claims." [Citation.] Attorneys and litigants... " 'have a right to present issues that are arguably correct, even if it is extremely unlikely that they will win.... ' " [Citation.]' " (Plumley v. Mockett, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 1047.) "Reasonable lawyers can differ, some seeing as meritless suits which others believe have merit, and some seeing as totally and completely without merit suits which others see as only marginally meritless. Suits which all reasonable lawyers agree totally lack merit—that is, those which lack probable cause—are the least meritorious of all meritless suits. Only this subgroup of meritless suits present no probable cause." (Roberts v. Sentry Life Insurance (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 375. 382 [90 Cal.Rptr.2d 408].)
4. The Interim Adverse Judgment Rule Does Not Apply
A rule has developed, known as the interim adverse judgment rule, that a victory in an underlying action at trial – even if subsequently reversed on appeal – establishes that probable cause existed to bring that action. "[D]ecisions in California and elsewhere established that a trial court judgment or verdict in favor of the plaintiff or prosecutor in the underlying case, unless obtained by means of fraud or perjury, establishes probable cause to bring the underlying action, even though the judgment or verdict is overturned on appeal or by later ruling of the trial court.... Because malicious prosecution suits have the potential to penalize and deter the legitimate invocation of the judicial process for redress of grievances, only claims that a reasonable litigant or attorney would have seen as lacking all merit should form the basis for such a suit. Claims that have succeeded at a hearing on the merits, even if that result is subsequently reversed by the trial or appellate court, are not so lacking in potential merit that a reasonable attorney or litigant would necessarily have recognized their frivolousness."
Page 279
(Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, 817-818 [123 Cal.Rptr.2d 19, 50 P.3d 733], fn. omitted, abrogated by statute on another ground, as stated in Hutton v. Hafif (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 527, 547 [59 Cal.Rptr.3d 109].)
For similar reasons, the interim adverse judgment rule applies when there has been a denial of a defendant's motion for summary judgment in the underlying action. "[S]uccess at trial shows that the suit was not among the least meritorious of meritless suits, those which are totally meritless and thus lack probable cause. [¶] Denial of a defendant's summary judgment motion provides similarly persuasive evidence that a suit does not totally lack merit." (Roberts v. Sentry Life Insurance, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 383.) A trial court's conclusions on summary judgment, that genuine issues of material fact exist, "necessarily imply that the judge finds at least some merit in the claim. The claimant may win, if certain material facts are decided favorably. This finding (unless disregarded) compels [the] conclusion that there is probable cause, because probable cause is lacking only in the total absence of merit." (Ibid.)
Certain exceptions apply to the operation of the interim adverse judgment rule. If the interim ruling was obtained by fraud or perjury, the ruling does not establish that probable cause existed. (Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 820.) If the summary judgment motion was denied "on procedural or technical grounds, rather than for existence of triable issues of material fact, " the summary judgment denial does not establish that probable cause existed. (Id. at p. 823.) This is so because the denial on procedural grounds "says nothing regarding the potential merit of the action." (Ibid.)
The instant case presents the issue of a third possible exception: whether the interim adverse judgment rule applies when there has been a subsequent ruling in the underlying action that the underlying action was, in fact, brought in bad faith. The interim adverse judgment rule infers from the fact that the trial court in the underlying action denied summary judgment that the trial court found at least some merit to the claim. But the trial court also found, in connection with its award of sanctions, that the action was objectively specious – supported by a complete lack of facts and seeking relief on a discredited legal theory. The latter findings cannot coexist with the former; if there was a complete lack of facts and law supporting the underlying action at the time of summary judgment, the summary judgment motion should have been granted.[17] The question therefore arises if the interim adverse judgment
Page 280
rule applies when subsequent rulings in the underlying action expressly undermine the probable cause inference which would otherwise arise from the interim summary judgment denial.[18]
This issue was presented, and resolved, by Division Four of the Second Appellate District in Slaney v. Ranger Ins. Co., supra, 115 Cal.App.4th 306 (Slaney). In that case, an insurance company denied a claim by its insureds for damage to a plane. On behalf of the insureds, the plane's prior owner prepared an estimate for repair to the plane. The insurer denied the claim and asserted that the insured and the prior owner had conspired to present a fraudulently excessive claim. When the insureds sued their insurer for bad faith, the insurer cross-complained against the insureds and the prior owner for fraud. The prior owner moved for summary judgment; the motion was denied. However, the prior owner subsequently renewed the motion (before a second judge), based on additional evidence, and the motion was granted. Thereafter, in the litigation between the insurer and the insureds, the insureds prevailed in their claim for bad faith, and the jury concluded that the insurer's denial of the claim – based on its assertion of fraud against the insureds and the prior owner – was malicious. Punitive damages were awarded. (Slaney, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 309.) The prior owner brought a malicious prosecution action against the insurer. The insurer filed an anti SLAPP motion, arguing that the initial denial of the prior owner's motion for summary judgment established that the insurer had probable cause to pursue its action against the prior owner under the interim adverse judgment rule. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion and the Court of Appeal affirmed. (Id. at p. 309.)
On appeal, the court concluded that the interim adverse judgment rule did not apply under the circumstances of the case. (Slaney, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at pp. 309 310.) The court recognized that the denial of summary judgment is generally sufficient to establish probable cause, and the prior owner's subsequent success on the renewed summary judgment motion was not enough to
Page 281
undermine this conclusion. (Id. at p. 320.) However, the fact that the jury ultimately found that the denial of the claim was done with malice, and awarded punitive damages, was sufficient to undermine the effect of the prior summary judgment denial. The jury concluded that the insurer's theory of conspiracy between its insureds and the prior owner was fraudulent and prosecuted in bad faith. Given this finding, the first denial of summary judgment was offset.[19] (115 Cal.App.4th at p. 321.)
We conclude Slaney controls the result in the instant case. In the absence of an exception to the rule, the interim adverse judgment rule would apply and render the denial of summary judgment in the underlying action conclusive evidence that the underlying action was brought with probable cause. However, in the very same action, the trial court also concluded that the underlying action was brought in objective and subjective bad faith, with no legal or factual basis. This finding offsets the denial of summary judgment, and defeats the application of the interim adverse judgment rule in this case.[20] (See Paiva v. Nichols (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1007, 1026 [85 Cal.Rptr.3d 838] [applying the interim adverse judgment rule and noting that
Page 282
there was nothing in the record indicating that the trial court in the underlying case sanctioned the malicious prosecution defendants or even suggested that they were less than forthright in their presentation of the case].)
5. There is Evidence of Lack of Probable Cause
Because the interim adverse judgment rule does not apply, we simply consider whether Former Employees have demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the issue of lack of probable cause.[21]
There is some authority that concludes that a trial court's finding of malice or baselessness in an underlying action is itself evidence of a lack of probable cause. (Franklin Mint Co. v. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, supra,
184 Cal.App.4th at pp. 332-333; Slaney, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 321; Mattel Inc. v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1191 [121 Cal.Rptr.2d 794]; but see Franklin Mint Co. v. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at pp. 368-371 (dis. opn. of Mosk, J.).)
Even if the trial court's findings of bad faith in the underlying action do not constitute evidence of a lack of probable cause, Former Employees have offered sufficient evidence of a probability of prevailing on this element of their malicious prosecution cause of action. Former Employees have evidence of the following: (1) Latham filed a complaint alleging a cause of action for actual misappropriation of trade secrets based solely on allegations that Former Employees misappropriated a business plan which they had created for FLIR, and disregarding Former Employees' claim that they had created the business plan previously;[22] (2) when Former Employees presented documentation establishing the business plan was not FLIR's intellectual property (as it had been created prior to Former Employees' employment at Indigo), Latham completely changed the theory of the misappropriation cause of action to pursue an argument that Former Employees could not effectuate the business plan in the time frames set forth therein without using FLIR's intellectual property;[23] (3) Latham knew or should have known that inevitable disclosure is not a viable legal theory in California, and that its theory
Page 283
therefore lacked a legal basis; (4) the factual basis for Latham's theory was expert testimony which considered only publicly available technology, when Latham knew that Former Employees intended to license non-public technology from Raytheon; and (5) FLIR's President gave testimony indicating that he had no factual basis for the assertion that Former Employees would use FLIR's intellectual property, and strongly implying that this action was nothing more than a preemptive strike.[24] This evidence, taken together, supports the conclusion that Latham pursued an obviously meritless claim against Former Employees.
Moreover, the record of the underlying action indicates that Latham, on behalf of FLIR, sought, among other remedies, an injunction prohibiting Former Employees from "[s]elling uncooled TEC-less [v]anadium [o]xide microbolometers in commercial markets less than twelve months after the date on which [Former Employees] or either of them, enter into a license with Raytheon or any other third party to purchase intellectual property.... " In other words, Latham pursued a theory of the case that since it was, allegedly, so certain that Former Employees and Raytheon could not bring a TEC-less vanadium oxide microbolometer to market within one year without using FLIR's technology, FLIR was entitled to an injunction preventing Former Employees from even attempting to do so. The UTSA allows an injunction for "[a]ctual or threatened misappropriation" of a trade secret. That Latham sought an obviously anti-competitive injunction based on the speculative possibility that the Former Employees' product might violate its client's trade secret rights further supports the conclusion that no reasonable attorney would have believed this case had merit. Former Employees have demonstrated a reasonable probability of prevailing on the element of lack of probable cause.
Latham's anti-SLAPP motion should have been denied. As such, the order granting Latham its attorney fees and costs as prevailing party must also be reversed.
Page 284
The order granting Latham's anti-SLAPP motion and the order granting Latham its attorney fees and costs as the prevailing party are reversed. Former Employees shall recover their costs on appeal.
Kitching, J., concurred.
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:
Solid colour top in 100% viscose
Solid colour top in 100% viscose
€ 9,99
Additional Information
Solid colour top in 100% viscose. Round neckline and wide shoulder straps. Semi-sheer insert and wide teardrop closure in the back. Tone-on-tone stitching.
- Shipping all over Italy: Standard at € 4.95 and Express at € 9.95
- Cash on delivery (Italy only): 7,90€ Find out more
- Free returns: you can send any items ordered back to us free of charge within 30 days of the order being placed
- Log into your customer account, in the section "My Orders" and select the items you wish to return
Item# 009355383
Product Actions
You might also like
009356710€ 5,99100% cotton top with pocket€ 9,99Description
100% cotton top with pocket
009355791€ 12,99 € 10,00Cotton blend T-shirt with fringing€ 9,99Description
Cotton blend T-shirt with fringing
009356805€ 7,99Cotton blend top with bow€ 9,99Description
Cotton blend top with bow
009355486€ 9,99All-over print top€ 9,99Description
All-over print top
004810774€ 5,99100% cotton T-shirt with tassels€ 9,99Description
100% cotton T-shirt with tassels


text:
"Marientidenkapelle in the Marienkirche" Top 5 Page for this destination Lübeck Things to Do Tip by sim1
Lübeck Things to Do: 151 reviews and 274 photos
Behind the choir, in the "Marientidenkapelle", you can see a late Gothic altar from the early 1500's made in Antwerpen. The altar is beautiful and it contains carvings portraying scenes from the life of Mary.
I loved the old artefacts in the Marienkirche. But that is not the only thing that you can see here. The church is actually a weird mixture between old and new styles. I am not sure if that really could please me that much. I like to see churches in their original state, without adding too many modern elements. Sometimes this mix does work, and sometimes it doesn't. For me in this case it wasn't a huge success. But that doesn't take away that I did love certain elements to be seen in this huge church. And if you are in Luebeck you certainly have to take a look inside. The sheer size of it alone will impress you.
More Things to Do in Lübeck (32)
More Reviews (6)
Restaurants (3)See All Wiener Schnitzel
Been to Lübeck?Share your travels with the world!
sim1's Related Pages
"Forever smiling :-)"
- Member Rank:
- 0 0 0 2 1
- Forum Rank:
- 0 1 8 8 0
- 4,781 Reviews
- 6,969 Photos
- Add Friend
- Follow
- Send Message
Have you been to Lübeck?Share Your Travels


text:
chicagomom Review
My reason for buying these pillows is because of the reviews I'd read about the great neck support. I had expected 100% down when reading the description "Luxury Soft Goose Down Pillows (Set of 2) ". I was disappointed when, in reading the contents tag, they were only "minimum 75% down". I knew the feathers would make the pillow 'harder' instead of soft, as I had expected. Upon taking them out of the box, it took only two hours for them to fluff up to full size. And they were 'full' size. Definately 550 fill and I was very pleased with that. The pillows are great for those who sleep on their side. Apparently am a 'back' sleeper and the pillows pushed head too far forward. This morning I awoke with my neck really hurting.They are great pillows if you like fluffy and very full pillows. If you like soft and mallable pillows, these are not for you.