The Complaint. The operative complaint spans 166 pages, plus more than 600 pages of attached exhibits. Plaintiff alleged 12 causes of action. The seven causes of action at issue in these appeals fall into four categories: (1) fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation to induce holder to hold securities (the inducement claims); (2) preventing subsequent employment by misrepresentation (blacklisting) and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; (3) unfair competition and conspiracy to engage in unfair competition (the UCL claims; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.); and (4) defamation. The complaint alleges that plaintiff reported wrongdoing and self-dealing by defendant Halle Benett and others at Banc, and then he resigned, after the director defendants refused to address the wrongdoing (described at length in the complaint). A separation agreement provided severance payments in exchange for mutual releases of all potential claims that existed as of January 23, 2017. Defendants immediately launched a campaign to attack plaintiff in order to conceal their wrongdoing, dissuade him from selling his Bank stock, and harm his ability to compete with defendants. In addition to concealing “numerous illegal acts” and breaching various contracts, defendants “also have hidden from [plaintiff] the true state of Banc’s business including its cratering financial performance since his departure,” and took various actions “to obscure the devastating effects their illegal actions had on Banc’s business, financial performance and prospects. Defendants made their false representations in order to harm [plaintiff] including in order to induce [plaintiff] to hold his Banc securities in reliance on the false information, promises, and disclosures.” The complaint alleges defendants “have conducted a coordinated campaign . . . to further their Cover Up, to damage [plaintiff’s] reputation with a barrage of vindictive, untrue, and harmful actions; to publish and distribute false and misleading information intended to present [plaintiff] in a negative light; and to scapegoat [plaintiff] for their wrong-doing and [m]isconduct which has resulted in tens of millions of dollars of damages to [plaintiff].” We will describe the allegations in more detail in our legal discussion.
The Complaint. 1) In a letter of 9 January 1997, the system vendor SABRE Travel Information Network (‘SABRE’) complained that Deutsche Lufthansa AG (‘Lufthansa’) is infringing Regula- tion (EEC) No 2299/89 (code of conduct) in that it offers incentives to corporate clients using electronic tickets for domestic travel on Lufthansa flights. This, it alleged, results in corporate clients only dealing with travel agents using the computerised reservation system (CRS) START Amadeus, of which Lufthansa is part owner, since it is the only system that can issue electronic tickets. A copy of the complaint was sent to Lufthansa (1) OJ L 220, 29.7.1989, p. 1.
The Complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint names two (2) defendants: Mark T. Esper, United States Secretary of Defense, and Mr. Mongell, CEO of Fort Walton Beach Medical Center (“FWBMC”). ECF Doc. 1 at 1, 3. The complaint sets forth the factual allegations that follow, the truth of which is accepted for purposes of this order and report and recommendation:In February of 2006, Plaintiff was “illegally Baker Acted for trying to save [her] life when [she] was in fact poisoned.” Id. at 4. At that time, she was sent from Eglin Air Force Base to FWBMC, where she was “kept for an extended period of time due to [her] religious beliefs.” Id. at 4-5.In 2014, after an unidentified accident, Plaintiff remembered that, while at FWBMC in 2006, she “was forced to take dangerous medication and forced to endure electronic shock treatments.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff’s daughter was offered an early release from the Army to have Plaintiff permanently institutionalized, and Plaintiff was “forced out of the Teaching Degree that [she] was 6 weeks from receiving.” Id. The military intervened in the accident settlement, which left Plaintiff without money and unable to work.Finally, in August of 2018, “two family members confirmed that due to the electrical shocks, [Plaintiff] was sent to the morgue and later pulled off [her] own toe tag.” Id.Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff alleges she has been denied “every constitutional right.” Id. As relief, she seeks $777,000,000 from the United States military, $777,000,000 from FWBMC, and for a non-party individual named Dr. Patricia Harrison to be removed from her profession. Plaintiff also states that she “want[s] to make this treatment STOP for everyone.” Id. at 6.
The Complaint processing capacity in the market. The Complaint alleges that the Transaction would likely have the effect of enhancing George’s incentive and ability to force growers to accept lower prices and less favorable contractual terms for grower services.
The Complaint. The university has actual knowledge of a potential Title IX violation when notification is given to the Title IX Coordinator or any official who has the authority to institute corrective measures. Upon notification of a potential Title IX violation, the Title IX Coordinator will promptly contact the complainant to discuss supportive measures; to consider the complainants wishes with respect to supportive measures; to inform the complainant of availability of these measures with or without the filing of a formal complaint; and to explain the grievance process and the procedure for filing a formal complaint. Emergency Removal of a student-respondent may still be appropriate, provided the university does an individualized safety and risk analysis; determines there is an immediate threat to the physical health or safety of students or employees that justifies removal; and, provides notice and an opportunity for the respondent to challenge the decision immediately following removal. Non-student employees may be placed on administrative leaves during investigations. The complainant or Title IX Coordinator file a document alleging sexual harassment against a respondent and requesting that the university investigate the allegation of sexual harassment, known as a “formal complaint.” A complainant may only file a formal Title IX complaint under this policy if the complainant is participating in or attempting to participate in an education program or activity of the university. The university treats the complainant and respondent equitably throughout the grievance process. All university officials involved in the grievance process must not have a conflict of interest or bias for or against either party. The respondent is presumed not to be responsible for the alleged conduct until a determination regarding responsibility is made at the conclusion of the grievance process. The parties are advised as to the range of possible disciplinary sanctions and remedies that the university may implement following any determination of responsibility. The university will determine responsibility based on the evidentiary standard of Preponderance of the Evidence and both parties are permitted to appeal the final decision. The university will provide for an informal resolution process such as mediation after the filing of a formal complaint. Informal resolution does not involve a full investigation and adjudication. The informal resolution process may begin at any time prior to a d...
The Complaint. Here, the plaintiff names as defendants Wexford Medical Services, Dr. Kuenzli, Dr. Samual Byrd, Dr. Mary Chavez, Dr. Jackie Denning, Nurse Kim Hobson, and Grievance Specialist Thomas Willington. He alleges the defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment when they refused to or failed to properly treat his broken hand and as a result he is in serious pain.More specifically, he alleges that he broke his hand on April 1, 2016, and Dr. Mary Chavez failed to treat it. He was then assisted by attorney Ken Faulk from the ACLU who reached an agreement with Wexford Medical Services to treat his hand with either surgery or pain medication. The plaintiff was then prescribed the pain medication Neurotin. In November of 2017, the plaintiff alleges that Wexford discontinued all prescriptions for Neurotin and did not prescribe him an alternative pain medication.On January 4, 2018, the plaintiff was seen by Dr. Jackie Dennings for his pain. He alleges when Dr. Dennings saw his tattoos and realized he was an Aryan, she kicked him out of her office and refused to treat him because he was a racist. He was in pain.The plaintiff submitted several health care request forms. While he was not seen by a medical provider, the plaintiff was prescribed prednisone for pain. He submitted a grievance that he alleges Grievance Specialist Willington failed to log for more than a month.On February 23, 2018, the plaintiff was seen by a specialist at Terre Haute Regional Hospital. The specialist recommended that the plaintiff have surgery on his hand to repair the deformed bone. He alleges that Wexford officials, Dr. Kuenzli, Dr. Byrd, and Nurse Hobson consulted together and agreed to deny his surgery. As a result, the plaintiff alleges that he remains in serious pain. He seeks monetary damages.
The Complaint. On May 18, 2010, 162 LLC filed a complaint against the Hoffmans and all persons claiming any interest adverse to 162 LLC’s title. It thereafter, in December 2010, filed a first amended complaint (Complaint) alleging two causes of action to quiet title and for injunctive relief.162 LLC alleged in the Complaint3 that since January 19, 2001, it has owned the 162 Wolfe property with a 9300 square foot commercial building located thereon. Since 2002, the Law Firm has occupied the 162 Wolfe building as a tenant. The Hoffmans are the owners of the 170 Wolfe property adjacent to 162 Wolfe, and they own a business, BackProject, operating out of a building located on 170 Wolfe. There is a paved alley or driveway (the driveway), approximately 43 feet wide at its narrowest point, running between the two buildings.Since its acquisition of the 162 Wolfe property in 2001, 162 LLC has “openly, notoriously, and continuously without permission used this paved driveway . . . including the portion on [the Hoffmans’] property, for ingress and egress[,] for access for remodeling/construction, vehicles, parking, commercial use, delivery vehicles[,] and toallow garbage to be picked up at the rear of their building.” 162 LLC alleged that it owns a prescriptive easement for ingress and egress burdening 170 Wolfe. 162 LLC also owns a landscape easement involving a triangle of land abutting North Wolfe Road, based upon 162 LLC’s having maintained at its expense since 2002 in an open, notorious and hostile