§Why CasetextPricing

The Board of Trustees of the City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement System et al v. Northern Trust Investments, N.A. et al

REPLY

12 Cited authorities

  1. Alpha School Bus Co. v. Wagner

    391 Ill. App. 3d 722 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 181 times
    Finding Trade Secrets Act does not preempt breach of fiduciary duty claims

  2. Benson v. Stafford

    407 Ill. App. 3d 902 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 99 times
    Holding "that plaintiffs cannot state a claim for affirmative fraud because they cannot show reasonable reliance on defendant's oral representations as a matter of law due to nonreliance clause"

  3. Haeger v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

    906 F. Supp. 2d 938 (D. Ariz. 2012)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Haeger, Defendants and their lawyers were sanctioned for failing to turn over certain information during discovery despite repeated requests from the plaintiff.

  4. PRO FIT MANAGEMENT v. LADY OF AMERICA FRANCHISE CORP

    Case No. 08-CV-2662 JAR/DJW (D. Kan. Feb. 25, 2011)   Cited 16 times
    Allowing the conditional responses to be amended for clarity

  5. Board of Trustees of the Aftra Retirement Fund v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

    860 F. Supp. 2d 251 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 09 Civ. 686 (SAS). 2012-01-19 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the AFTRA RETIREMENT FUND, in its capacity as a fiduciary of the AFTRA Retirement Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant. Board of Trustees of the Imperial County Employees' Retirement System, in its capacity as a fiduciary of the Imperial County Employees' Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan Chase

  6. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minnesota v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

    Civil No. 11-2529 (DWF/JJG) (D. Minn. Apr. 18, 2012)   Cited 5 times
    Denying a motion to dismiss a fraud claim where the complaint identified the corporate documents which contained the alleged misrepresentations as well as “the precise alleged misrepresentations contained therein” and “alleged specifically what allegedly fraudulent communications each individual plaintiff had with Wells Fargo and the approximate time and date on which such communications took place”

  7. Henry A. v. Willden

    271 F.R.D. 184 (D. Nev. 2010)   Cited 3 times
    Denying party's motion for protective order that would allow it to redact private information of third parties when the parties had stipulated to a protective order that " applie[d] to all of the files or documents" at issue and " prohibit[ed] use of this confidential information for any purpose other than the prosecution, defense or settlement of this action"

  8. E3 Biofuels, LLC v. Biothane, LLC

    8:11CV44 (D. Neb. Jun. 29, 2012)   Cited 1 times
    Finding interrogatory responses sufficient where the plaintiff narrowed the definition of "you" and "your" because the defendant's definition included legal entities and people who had nothing to do with the facts of the case

  9. Wallis v. Centennial Ins. Co.

    No. 2:08-cv-2558 WBS GGH (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2012)

    No. 2:08-cv-2558 WBS GGH 11-06-2012 DALE M. WALLIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants. Gregory G. Hollows ORDER Previously pending on this court's law and motion calendar for November 1, 2012, was Defendants' motion to compel responses to interrogatories and request for production of documents. Gary Selvin appeared for defendants; Joanna Mendoza represented plaintiffs. Having reviewed the papers in support of and in opposition to the motion, the court now

  10. Robinson Steel Co. v. Caterpillar, Inc.

    CAUSE NO.: 2:10-CV-438-JTM-PRC (N.D. Ind. Aug. 6, 2012)

    CAUSE NO.: 2:10-CV-438-JTM-PRC 08-06-2012 ROBINSON STEEL CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. CATERPILLAR, INC., Defendant. PAUL R. CHERRY OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendant Caterpillar Inc.'s Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Interrogatories and Document Requests [DE 53], filed by Defendant Caterpillar, Inc. ("Caterpillar") on April 12, 2012. Plaintiff Robinson Steel Company ("Robinson") filed a Response on May 10, 2012, and Caterpillar filed its Reply on May 17, 2012. BACKGROUND

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 163,896 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."