22-CV-990 Hunter v. AFGroup Emerging Markets
22-CV-990 Hunter v. AFGroup Emerging Markets
Decision and Order
You are here
William E. Duffin
22-CV-1068 West v. DeJoy
22-CV-1068 West v. DeJoy
Decision and Order
16-CV-685 McFarland-Lawson v. Carson
16-CV-685 McFarland-Lawson v. Carson
Order
The Secretary for the Department of Housing and Urban Development asserted that certain documents sought by the plaintiff, a former HUD employee, were protected by the deliberative process privilege. The court rejected the claim, noting that the deliberative process privilege protects policy deliberations and not ordinary personnel matters of an agency.
20-CV-407 Triggs v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections
20-CV-407 Triggs v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections
Order
22-CV-777 Action Rentals Holdings v. Wacker Neuson America Corporation
22-CV-777 Action Rentals Holdings v. Wacker Neuson America Corporation
Order
20-CV-729 Villareal v. Rocky Knoll Health Care Center
20-CV-729 Villareal v. Rocky Knoll Health Care Center
Decision and Order
22-CV-317 Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology v. Kip Co. Ltd., et al
22-CV-317 Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology v. Kip Co. Ltd., et al
Decision and Order
In a multi-faceted dispute over the monetization of a patent owned by a Korean research university the court granted certain defendants’ motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens in part because of a provision in certain of the parties’ agreements that required disputes be arbitrated in Korea. The court also granted motions to dismiss brought by other defendants.
22-CV-69 Ball v. Landmark Credit Union
22-CV-69 Ball v. Landmark Credit Union
Decision and Order
20-CV-1846 Haymer v. Racine Family YMCA
20-CV-1846 Haymer v. Racine Family YMCA
Decision and Order
20-CV-1702 Eilene A. Shimi v. Associated Financial Group, LLC
20-CV-1702 Eilene A. Shimi v. Associated Financial Group, LLC
Decision and Order
The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff demonstrated, at best, that the defendant acted unfairly in terminating her employment. The plaintiff failed to present evidence that would permit a reasonable finder of fact to conclude that she would not have been fired but for her age.
Pages
