Dkt. No. 59. The Court defined the certified class as: 5 All U.S. employers who in 2019 through December 6, 2020 filed, or will file, a petition (Form I- 129 or any successor) with USCIS for an H-1B classification under 8 U.S.C. 6 § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) for a market research analyst where: • USCIS denied or will deny the petition solely or in part based on a finding that the 7 OOH entry for market research analyst does not establish that the occupation is a 8 specialty occupation, and thus does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1); and • But for this finding, the petition would be approved.
Dkt. Nos. C-1517 and D-9175 ("Agreement"). After entry of this Decree, Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn shall within three (3) business days trxxxxxx txxx xxx frxx xhe escrow account to Consent Decree Page 2 of 9 Exhibit 11.35
Dkt. No. 5] The Court granted the United States’ motion and, on June 17, 2009, the United States filed its Complaint-in-Intervention against certain of the Anadarko Entities. [Adv. Dkt. No. 25] 10. On July 31, 2009, Anadarko filed a motion to dismiss the Debtors’ Adversary Complaint. [Adv. Dkt. No. 45]. In an opinion issued March 31, 2010, and an order issued on April 30, 2010, the Court granted Anadarko’s motion to dismiss with respect to Counts IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, and the Debtors’ request for punitive damages. [Adv. Dkt. Nos. 117 & 125]. Count VII was dismissed with prejudice, and Counts VIII through XI were dismissed without prejudice to renewal in connection with the claims allowance process. The Court denied the Motion with respect to Counts I, II, and III, and dismissed Counts IV (breach of fiduciary duty), V (aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty), and VI (civil conspiracy) without prejudice and with leave to replead.
Dkt. No. 5]. The Court granted the United States’ motion and, on June 17, 2009, the United States filed its Complaint-in-Intervention against certain of the Anadarko Entities. [Adv. Dkt. No. 25].
Dkt. No. 1. In its Verified Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem, and Amended Verified 7 Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem, the United States alleged that the Defendant Currency is 8 proceeds from the sale of controlled substances and/or attempt or conspiracy to distribute 9 controlled substances and, therefore, is forfeitable to the United States pursuant to 21 11 The United States provided proper notice of this action to all known potential
Dkt. 69. The FAC added defendants Signal Auditing, Inc. (“Signal”) and Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx.
Dkt. No. 1. 16 On April 7, 2021, law enforcement officers lawfully executed a valid search 17 warrant at a residence associated with Claimant XxXxx at 00000 0xx Xxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxxxx 00 Xxx, Xxxxxxxxxx (“Claimant XxXxx’x residence”), where they seized, inter alia, $5,708 19 in U.S. currency, a 2015 Chevrolet Corvette, seven cell phones, and financial documents 20 showing Xxxxxxxx XxXxx was both buying and renovating properties for resale and 21 renting properties that he purchased. Agents also located various bank records associated 22 with Claimant XxXxx and EMC Enterprises LLC. On April 22, 2021, pursuant to a 23 lawfully executed forfeiture seizure warrant, law enforcement officers seized 24 $213,159.84 in funds from a financial account at Bank of America held in the name of 25 EMC Enterprises LLC. Xxxxxxxx XxXxx is the sole member, governor, and controlling 26 person of EMC Enterprises LLC. The Defendant Property is also subject to forfeiture in a 27 1 related criminal case, United States v. Xxxxxx XxXxx, et al., CR21-058-RSM (the 2 “Related Case”).
Dkt. No. ¶ 3. In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court also found that the FDCPA Sub- 16 Class satisfies numerosity and certified the following Sub-Class:
