SO ORDERED Sample Clauses

SO ORDERED. ▇▇▇ (Chairman), Narvasa, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, and ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇., concur.

SO ORDERED. It is hereby certified by this Board that the above language is a copy of the Order entered upon its journal in this case.

SO ORDERED. THE ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. URBANSKI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SO ORDERED. Dated: The ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇. Richardson United States District Court Judge This notice is a summary only. Please read this notice and then visit the settlement website or call the number below for further important information about the settlement. 1- www. .com What is this? You have been sent this notice because records indicate that you purchased or leased a 2015-2018 Nissan Murano or 2016-2018 Nissan Maxima vehicle equipped with a “CVT” or Continuously Variable Transmission (the “Class Vehicles”). A Settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit against Nissan North America, Inc. (“NNA”) regarding the CVT in the Class Vehicles. Am I a Member of the Class? The proposed Settlement Class consists of those who purchased or leased Class Vehicles in the U.S. or its Territories.

SO ORDERED. Dated: ▇▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. Mihm United States District Judge Location‌ Hostname Street Address City State Hy-Vee Altoona 1011 1011TERM1 ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Hy-Vee Gas Lincoln 5386 5386LANE50 ▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇-▇▇▇ ▇▇▇'s Summit 1381 5381LANE50 ▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇'▇ Summit MO Hy-Vee Gas Chrls Cty 5074 5074LANE50 ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ City IA Hy-Vee Iowa City 1281 1281TERM1 1720 Waterfront Dr Iowa City IA Hy-Vee Iowa City 1281 1281TERM2 1720 Waterfront Dr Iowa City IA Hy-Vee Iowa City 1281 1281TERM3 1720 Waterfront Dr Iowa City IA Hy-Vee Iowa City 1281 1281TERM4 1720 Waterfront Dr Iowa City IA Hy-▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1323 1323TERM1 ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Hy-▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1323 1323TERM4 ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Hy-Vee Muscatine 1437 1437TERM2 ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Hy-Vee Muscatine 1437 1437TERM3 ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Hy-Vee Sioux Falls 1633 1633TERM1 1900 S ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Rd Sioux Falls SD Hy-Vee Sioux Falls 1633 1633TERM2 1900 S ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Rd Sioux Falls SD Hy-Vee Sioux Falls 1633 1633TERM3 1900 S Marion Rd Sioux Falls SD Hy-Vee Sioux Falls 1633 1633TERM4 1900 S Marion Rd Sioux Falls SD Hy-Vee Sioux Falls 1633 1633TERM5 1900 S Marion Rd Sioux Falls SD Hy-Vee Wndsr Heights 1895 1895TERM1 ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Hy-Vee Wndsr Heights 1895 1895TERM2 ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Hy-Vee Wndsr Heights 1895 1895TERM3 ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Hy-Vee Wndsr Heights 1895 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Hy-Vee Winterset 1898 1898TERM1 ▇▇▇ ▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Hy-Vee Winterset 1898 1898TERM2 ▇▇▇ ▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Hy-Vee Winterset 1898 1898TERM3 ▇▇▇ ▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Hy-Vee Gas Indianola 5271 5271LANE50 ▇▇▇ ▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Hy-Vee Gas St. ▇▇▇ 5552 5552LANE50 ▇▇▇ ▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Hy-Vee Waterloo 1866 5866LANE50 ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Waterloo IA Hy-Vee WDM 1889 1889TERM1 ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Hy-Vee WDM 1889 1889TERM2 ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Hy-Vee WDM 1889 1889TERM3 ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Hy-Vee Bloomington 5035 5035LANE50 ▇▇▇▇ ▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Hy-▇▇▇ ▇▇▇'▇ Summit 1380 1380TERM1 ▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇'▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ MO Hy-▇▇▇ ▇▇▇'▇ Summit 1380 1380TERM3 ▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇'▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ MO ▇▇-▇▇▇ ▇▇▇'s Summit 1380 1380TERM4 ▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇'▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ MO Hy-Vee Gas L Summit 5380 5380LANE50 ▇▇▇ ▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ Summit MO Hy-▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1051 1051TERM1 ▇▇▇ ▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Hy-▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1051 1051TERM2 ▇▇▇ ▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇...

SO ORDERED. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, and ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇., concur. vs. ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇.: The case before the Court is a petition for certiorari1 to annul the following orders of the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as "NLRC") for having been issued without or with excess jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion:2

SO ORDERED. On 18 May 2007, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,18 which was denied in an Order19 dated 16 August 2007. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, petitioner appealed to the CA on 19 December 2007.20 On 17 March 2010, the CA rendered a Decision21 in favor of private respondent, as follows: In fine, public respondent SSC had sufficient basis in concluding that private respondent’s husband was an employee of petitioner and should, therefore, be entitled to compulsory coverage under the Social Security Law. Having ruled in favor of the existence of employer-employee relationship between petitioner and the late ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, it is no longer necessary to dwell on the other issues raised. Resultantly, for his failure to report ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ for compulsory social security coverage, petitioner should bear the consequences thereof. Under the law, an employer who fails to report his employee for social security coverage is liable to [1] pay the benefits of those who die, become disabled, get sick or reach retirement age; [2] pay all unpaid contributions plus a penalty of three percent per month; and [3] be held liable for a criminal offense punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. But an 17 CA rollo, pp. 79-87. 18 ▇▇▇▇▇, pp. 108-110. 19 Id. at 107. 20 Id. at 37-52. 21 Id. at 54-65. employee is still entitled to social security benefits even is (sic) his employer fails or refuses to remit his contribution to the SSS. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto. In holding thus, the CA gave credence to the findings of the SSC. The appellate court held that it “does not follow that a person who does not observe normal hours of work cannot be deemed an employee.”22 For one, it is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee; it is sufficient that the former has a right to wield the power. In this case, petitioner exercised his control through an overseer in the person of ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, the tenant on petitioner’s land.23 Most important, petitioner entered into a Compromise Agreement with private respondent and expressly admitted therein that he was the employer of the deceased.24 The CA interpreted this admission as a declaration against interest, pursuant to Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.25 Hence, this petition. Public respondents SSS26 and SSC27 filed their Comments on 31 January 2011 and 28 February 2011, respectively, while private respondent filed her Comment on 14 March 2011.28 On 6 March 20...

SO ORDERED. Date: ▇▇▇. ▇▇▇▇ ▇. MARTINEZ