Xxxxxxx v. Google LLC, No. 2021-CH-01460 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cnty.), and Xxxxxxx v. Google LLC, No. 1:20-cv-04454 (N.D. Ill.).
Xxxxxxx v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 558 F.3d 1112, 1116-17 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that Xxx concluded “discrimination against LEP individuals was discrimination based on national origin in violation of Title VI”); Xxxxxxx at 977-78 (Title VI intent claim properly alleged when a federally funded housing project failed to provide language assistance services); United States v.
Xxxxxxx v. Proskauer Rose LLP, No. 2012-CI-02425 (Tex., Bexar Cnty. [166th Dist.]) (dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution on May 20, 2014)
Xxxxxxx v. P.- Corporate Services - 100% Social Membership, Westward Ho Country Club & 50% of the difference between the Social and Executive Golf membership.
Xxxxxxx v. New Jersey (1967) 29 “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (XXXX)” xxxxx://xxx.xxxx.xxx/genetic- 30 information-discrimination 31 “Governor’s Finance Office (GFO)” xxx.xxxxxx.xx.xxx 32 Governor’s Office xxx.xxx.xx.xxx
Xxxxxxx v. Alterra Mountain Co. and Ikon Pass Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01186-RM-SKC (D. Colo.); (5) Xxxxxx et al. v.
Xxxxxxx v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority, 7 F.M.C. 417, (1962) Taken to its logical conclusion, the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over the contractual relations between Respondents and non-party IEPs regarding the supply of chassis that move on MH terms would suggest the Commission could regulate contracts between Respondents and container lessors or Respondents and bunker suppliers if it is alleged that such contracts bore some relationship to or had some impact on receiving, handling, storing or delivering property. The ALJ’s ruling presents convoluted results. The ruling dictates that carriers can be found in violation by designating preferred chassis providers for MH movements and be ordered to cease such activity. The consequence of such a finding is to divest carriers from such IEP agreements concerning MH movements and to direct motor carriers and IEPs, neither of whom is subject to FMC jurisdiction, to contract for such MH services. In other words, the FMC is ordering ocean carriers to cease ensuring the sufficient availability of chassis in MH movements and to direct persons not subject to FMC jurisdiction to undertake such activity, a power not within the FMC’s statutory authority. The FMC is not empowered by Congress to seize jurisdiction and then to discard it. Moreover, the FMC lacks authority to prescribe or order regulations or practices upon a finding of a violation under §41102(c) unlike its predecessor Section 17, Shipping Act 1916, which was authorized to do so upon a finding of a violation. The result of the ID’s decision is to necessitate that persons not subject to FMC jurisdiction enter into contracts or arrangements for MH movements. The Commission has recently shown interest in the utilization of chassis and their importance in facilitating the inland transportation of containers. However, the Commission is constrained by the jurisdictional authority it has been delegated. Indeed, the Commission has recognized that the Shipping Act’s primary purpose is to protect customers of the shipping industry and not members of the industry. See Boston Shipping Association v. F.M.C., 706 F. 2d 1231, 1238 (1st Cir. 1983) and New York Shipping Association v. F.M.C., 854 F. 2d 1338, 1374 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1041 (1989). Legislative intent of the 1984 Act underscores this primary purpose: minimizing regulation and government involvement in shipping operations with the primary role of the Commission to be protecting carriers, ship...
Xxxxxxx v. 1991. Purification and characterization of Tet(M), a protein that renders ribosomes resistant to tetracycline. J. Biol. Chem. 266:2872-2877.
Xxxxxxx v. Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, 8 Ltd., No. CV115935PSGAGRX, 2013 WL 12124432, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2013) (approving a 9 notice plan reaching 77%); In re: Whirlpool Corp. Front–loading Washer Prod. Liab. Litig., 10 No. 1:08-WP-65000, 2016 WL 5338012, at *9 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 23, 2016) (approving notice plan 11 reaching approximately 77.5 percent of Class Members); see also Xxxxxx v. Ghirardelli Chocolate 13 publication notice plan in class action regarding grocery store item); Xxxxxx x. Fitflop USA, LLC, 00 Xx. 00-XX-0000 X XXX, 0000 WL 1670133, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014) (same for class 15 action regarding shoes).
Xxxxxxx v. XxXxxx.xxx, 2011 WL 3809912 (N.D. Cal. August 29, 2011) (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss in case alleging false and misleading advertising by a social networking company).
