Plaintiff

this Court should dismiss or stay this matter because Defendants are entitled to arbitration. Assuming, arguendo, that this Court is the proper forum to resolve this dispute—it is not—Defendants are nevertheless entitled to a partial dismissal of Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. Indeed, the only claim for which the allegations in the complaint—as supplemented by the actual document referenced therein—could possibly sustain is a claim that Billion breached its obligations owed to XALT, MI under

This claim arises out of a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff, Debra Nathan-Nenn, on her own behalf, and on behalf of her minor son, Grey Hoffman. The Amended Complaint alleges in general that Ms. Nathan-Nenn executed a written lease to rent a house from the insureds starting on June 1, 2013. The plaintiffs further allege that starting on the day the plaintiffs took possession of the house, the drain in the kitchen sink was not working and the insureds failed to correct this condition. The complaint

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2-603, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DISMISS COUNTS IV, V, VI VII, AND VIII PURSUANT TO SECTION 2-619.1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Defendants, Gerry Goldman and Mary Goldman, by their attorneys, ADLER, MURPHY, & MCQUILLEN LLP, and respectfully moves this Court to dismiss their the Fourth Amended Complaint with prejudice pursuant to section 2-603 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative, dismiss Counts

305-456-7890 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT INANDFOR ­­­MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA WILMA MAPLES, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION vs. CASE: 13-2014-159753 DEPT. NO: XVII DOCKET NO: WE CARE FOR YOU HOSPITAL AND REHABILITATION CENTER, 1-5 DOES, 1-5 ROES, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, NOTICE, AND BRIEF Defendants. ___________________________/ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT COME NOW, PLAINTIFF, by and through her attorney

works. There was no doubt that the defendant in Peter had access to the plaintiff’s plans (they worked together previously), and there were certainly some overt similarities in the two developments. However, the court would not even allow the plaintiff the benefit of discovery because, in its view, the differences were too substantial. While making such a fact intensive determination at the pleading stage may be somewhat brash, the nature of “thin”

“MERS”). Plaintiffs allege that the April 24, 2006, Deed of Trust was purportedly assigned to Defendant Bank of

known as Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC, who respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's claims. Defendants move this Court for a Summary Judgment on the grounds that the Plaintiff is unable to set forth evidence sufficient to satisfy its substantive evidentiary burden at trial. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 1. On or about March 26th, 2006, Henry Narcisse went to the Firestone store on Pinhook and replaced the tires on Eva Narcisse's

Defendant Dr. Brandon Iron respectfully moves the Court, pursuant to Rule 3212(a) of the New York Civil Practice Law & Rules, to grant a motion for Summary Judgement in response to Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress Claim. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Iron intentionally inflicted emotional distress while performing a surgical procedure. Iron contends that the marking does not satisfy the extreme and outrageous behavior element. Absent such extreme and outrageous behavior, the

Rent-A-Car Incorporation, leased a vehicle to Jeffery Calkin. The Defendant, Mr. Calkin was involved in a collision by failing to stop at a stop sign, therefore colliding with Jane White, the Plaintiff. Ms. White filed a negligence law suit against Mr. Calkin and Sage Rent-A-Car Inc. In the complaint, the Plaintiff claims that our client is required to carry insurance under the provisions of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act and therefore, has the duty to assume liability for the Defendant’s

case, The National Enquirer, Inc. located in Florida and the plaintiff, actress Shirley Jones, located in California, this issue is the defendant and the plaintiff reside in two different states, so are the defendants subject to suit in California if they reside in Florida? Suits are determined by the courts, if the employees of The Enquirer responsible for the story have minimal contact in the state of the suit by way of the plaintiff Shirley Jones providing proof that The Enquirer or employees