RULING ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL JAMES J. BRADY, District Judge. Before the Court are motions to dismiss (Docs. 166, 169 & 174) and motions for new trial (Docs. 165, 168 & 173) filed by defendants Sofjan Lamid, Henry Jones and N. Felix Ngari. All three defendants were convicted of two counts of conspiracy-related charges regarding schemes to defraud Medicare and pay or receive health care kickbacks. I. Factual and Procedural History On April 28, 2010, a grand jury...
RULING ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JAMES J. BRADY, District Judge. Before the Court is ThornCo, L.L.C.'s ("ThornCo") motion for summary judgment (Doc. 392) 1 and KeyBank, N.A.'s ("KeyBank") competing motion for summary judgment (Doc. 394). Oppositions (Docs. 401, 402) and reply briefs (Docs. 408, 409) were also filed. There is no need for oral argument. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. 1332. The parties seek a determination by this Court as to the...
MEMORANDUM ORDER S. MAURICE HICKS, District Judge. Before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss Mail and Wire Fraud Counts 9-11 (Record Documents 55 and 56) filed by Defendant George L. Grace, Sr. ("Grace"). The first motion seeks dismissal of Counts 9-11 "because the indictment fails to factually support each element of federal bribery or kickback crimes." Record Document 55-1 at 2. The second motion seeks dismissal of Counts 9-11 on the ground that "there is no allegation that the City of St....
RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(1) AND 12(B)(6) JAMES J. BRADY, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant's motion (doc. 14) to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has filed an opposition (doc. 23). 1 Oral argument is not necessary. This Court's jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331. For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion. I. Facts In 2001, the State of...
RULING BRIAN A. JACKSON, District Judge. The Court has carefully considered the petition, the record, the law applicable to this action, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Christine Noland dated January 20, 2011. Plaintiff has filed an objection which the Court has considered. The Court hereby approves the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and adopts it as the Court's opinion herein. Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 17)...
RULING FRANK J. POLOZOLA, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss by the defendants. 1 Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to this motion. 2 Oral argument was held on this motion on July 20, 2011. The Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for oral reasons assigned and reserved the right to assign additional written reasons in support of its decision. The Court's supplemental reasons follow. The Court must determine the following issues to address...
RULING ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JAMES J. BRADY, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on three Motions for Partial Summary Judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There are numerous motions pending. Parties have advised that resolving these three will potentially resolve a number of them. Plaintiffs have filed one Motion (doc. 136) while Defendant has filed two (docs. 138, 139). Parties have filed briefs the on the motions. Oral argument was heard....
RULING FRANK J. POLOZOLA, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the motion of defendant, Joshua Kinchen, to suppress evidence. 1 Specifically, the defendant seeks to suppress the identification made by a confidential informant of his photograph on two occasions. The parties have submitted to the Court a joint stipulation 2 of expected testimony which the Court must use in ruling on this motion. In accordance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendant has also...
RULING JAMES J. BRADY, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on a motion (doc. 26) for summary judgment, filed by defendants MillerCoors, LLC and Miller Brewing Company (collectively, "MillerCoors"). The motion is unopposed by plaintiff Leonard Bennett (doc. 31). Oral argument is not necessary. Plaintiff's underlying suit seeks damages for an injury sustained while plaintiff was loading cases of beer onto a pallet. According to plaintiff, as he picked up a corrugated fiberboard...
