§Why CasetextPricing

Obeslo et al v. Great-West Capital Management, LLC

MOTION to Consolidate Cases

12 Cited authorities

  1. Jones v. Harris Associates

    559 U.S. 335 (2010)   Cited 87 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that deference is due where a board's process “for negotiating and reviewing investment-adviser compensation is robust”

  2. Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management

    694 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1982)   Cited 152 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "price charged by other similar advisers to funds managed by them" is not the principal factor in evaluating fee's fairness, while noting "[w]e do not suggest that rates charged by other advisers to other similar funds are not a factor to be taken into account"

  3. Sivolella v. AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co.

    Civil Action No.: 11-cv-4194 (PGS)(DEA) (D.N.J. Aug. 25, 2016)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting a failure "to show ‘actual damages’ ... prevents any recovery by Plaintiffs"

  4. Adams v. Veolia Transp.

    Civil Action No. 11-cv-02491-PAB-KMT (D. Colo. Jan. 20, 2012)   Cited 10 times

    Civil Action No. 11-cv-02491-PAB-KMT 01-20-2012 MARIA A. ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION, Defendant. PHILIP A. BRIMMER Judge Philip A. Brimmer ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Consolidate [Docket No. 19] filed by defendant Veolia Transportation Services, Inc. Veolia Transportation seeks an order consolidating this case with a related case, Adams v. Veolia Transportation, 11-cv-02492-MSK-CBS, pending in this District before Judge Marcia S. Krieger. After review of

  5. Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Western Skyways, Inc.

    Civil Case No. 09-cv-01717-LTB (D. Colo. May. 21, 2010)   Cited 6 times

    Civil Case No. 09-cv-01717-LTB. May 21, 2010 ORDER LEWIS BABCOCK, Chief District Judge THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Employers Mutual Casualty Company's (hereinafter "EMC") Motion to Consolidate Related Cases, filed January 19, 2010 (docket #23); Defendant's Response, filed February 9, 2010 (docket #27); and Plaintiff's Reply, filed February 23, 2010 (docket #30). For the reasons stated below, the Motion is granted. I. BACKGROUND This case arises from the July 22, 2007, crash of a

  6. Leprino Foods Co. v. DCI, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 13-cv-02430-RM-KMT (D. Colo. Jan. 9, 2015)

    Civil Action No. 13-cv-02430-RM-KMT 01-09-2015 LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. DCI, INC., Defendant. Judge Raymond P. Moore ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendant DCI, Inc.'s ("DCI") motion to consolidate ("Motion") (ECF No. 68) case numbers 13-CV-02430 (the "Lenmoore West Case") and 14-CV-02731 (the "Greeley Case"). Plaintiff Leprino Foods Company ("Leprino") opposes the Motion. Defendant filed a "Motion to Consolidate and for a Protective Order Staying Discovery." (ECF No. 68 in

  7. Gardner v. Cafepress Inc.

    CASE NO. 3:13-cv-1108-GPC-JLB (S.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2014)

    CASE NO. 3:13-cv-1108-GPC-JLB 12-16-2014 STEVEN M. GARDNER, an individual, Plaintiff, v. CAFEPRESS INC., a Delaware Corporation, et al., Defendants. HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL United States District Judge ORDER: (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND TO SET NEW SCHEDULING DATES; [No. 3:13-cv-1108-GPC-JLB, ECF No. 100] [No. 3:14-cv-0792-GPC-JLB, ECF No. 7] (2) VACATING HEARING DATE I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is Plaintiff Steven M. Gardner's ("Plaintiff") Motion

  8. Ayyad v. Gonzales

    Civil Action No. 05-cv-02342-WYD-MJW (D. Colo. Jan. 17, 2008)   Cited 2 times

    Civil Action No. 05-cv-02342-WYD-MJW. January 17, 2008 ORDER WILEY DANIEL, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION THIS MATTER came before the Court on a hearing on January 2, 2008, on Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Preliminary Injunction or Protective Order filed December 3, 2007. A response to the motion was filed on December 20, 2007, and a reply was filed on December 28, 2007. For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing and in this Order, Plaintiff's motion is granted. II. BACKGROUND Plaintiff

  9. Ocean Ships, Inc. v. Stiles

    00 CIV. 5469 (RCC) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2003)   Cited 3 times

    00 CIV. 5469 (RCC) November 18, 2003 OPINION AND ORDER RICHARD CASEY, District Judge Plaintiff Ocean Ships, Inc. ("Ocean Ships") moves to consolidate two separate actions against defendants Thomas E. Stiles and the law firm of Stiles and Wright, P.C., 00 Civ. 5469 (RCC) ("the Stiles action") and defendant Stephen Wright, 02 Civ. 7251 (RCC) ("the Wright Action"). Because the Court finds that the benefits of efficiency resulting from consolidation outweigh any issues of prejudice or confusion, Plaintiff's

  10. Gillette Motor Tr. v. N. Oklahoma Butane Co.

    179 F.2d 711 (10th Cir. 1950)   Cited 47 times
    Recognizing "broad discretion vested in the trial court in ordering consolidation of cases"

  11. Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 42   Cited 9,241 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."

  12. Section 80a-35 - Breach of fiduciary duty

    15 U.S.C. § 80a-35   Cited 310 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Imposing a “fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation for services, or of payments of a material nature ”