UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES DIVISION In re: John Thymes and Shirley Thymes, Case No.: 2:88-bk-10553-ER Debtors. Chapter: 7 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [RELATES TO DOC. NOS. 79–80] [No hearing required pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(j)(3)] John and Shirley Thymes (the “Debtors”) move for reconsideration (the “Motion for Reconsideration”)1 of the Memorandum of Decision Denying Motions to Vacate Dismissal, Vacate State Court Judgment, and Consolidate Cases (the “Memorandum of Decision”)2 and the accompanying Order Denying Motions to Vacate Dismissal, Vacate State Court Judgment, and Consolidate Cases (the “Order”).3 Pursuant to Civil Rule 78(b) and LBR 9013-1(j)(3),4 the Court finds the Motion for Reconsideration to be suitable for disposition without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.5 1 Doc. Nos. 79–80. 2 Doc. No. 74. 3 Doc. No. 75.

No oral argument was heard. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78. To briefly summarize the facts of this case, Plaintiff Jean Colasurdo Connolly (“Plaintiff” or “Connolly”) was an employee of Mitsui for approximately 11 years.

179 EXHIBIT A Case 3:16-cv-03931-FLW-TJB Document 14-3 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 21 PageID: 180 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ____________________________________ MARQUIS HARRIS, : : Plaintiff, : : Civ. Action No. 16-3931(FLW) v. : : ORDER DEP’T OF HUMAN SERVICES, et al., : : Defendants. : ____________________________________: THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by Joel Clymer, Esq., counsel for Defendants New Jersey Department of Human Services (“DHS”), Trenton Psychiatric Hospital (the “Hospital”), and Mary Beth Candelori-Longo (collectively, “Defendants”), on a Motion to Dismiss Counts Three, Four, and Five of Plaintiff Marquis Harris’ (“Plaintiff”) Complaint; it appearing that Plaintiff, through his counsel, Ashton E. Thomas, Esq., opposes the Motion; the Court having considered the parties’ submissions in connection with the Motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78, the Court makes the following findings: 1. Plaintiff filed the instant employment discrimination suit against Defendants for, inter alia, failing to accommodate her disability in violation of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) (Count I) and New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”) (Count IV); retaliation in violation of the ADA (Count II) and NJLAD (Count V); and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count III).

The Motion is being decided pursuant to DAVID ROCCO, Plaintiff, vs. BERGEN COUNTY and CORIZON, Defendants. Case 2:16-cv-04540-ES-MAH Document 8-5 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 88 2 F.R.Civ.P. 78. Accordingly, and for good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED, this _________ day of __________ 2016, that: (1) Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.

R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), and the Court having considered the papers submitted herein and decided the matter pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 78, and for good cause shown; IT IS ON THIS day of , 2016; ORDERED that Defendants State of New Jersey, the Office of Emergency Management, Governor Chris Christie, and Colonel Rick Fuentes, Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Failure to State a Claim is hereby GRANTED; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed with prejudice as it pertains to these defendants. ________________________________ Hon. Michael A. Shipp, U.S.D.J. Case 3:14-cv-07178-MAS-LHG Document 57-2 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 455 CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street P.O. Box 112 Trenton, NJ 08625-0112 Attorney for Defendants State of New Jersey, the Office of Emergency Management, Governor Chris Christie, and Colonel Rick Fuentes By: Matthew J. Lynch Deputy Attorney General (609) 633-8687 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY TRE

[Docket Item 5.] BCBSAL’s motion is now fully briefed and will be decided without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. 3. Standard of Review. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), a complaint need only contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

The Court has considered the parties' submissions and decides this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. 1

The Court found this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacated the hearing scheduled for January 27, 2017. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

Hon. William J. Martini Civil Action No. 2:17-01835 (WJM)(MF) NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on July 17, 2017 at 10:00 AM, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, WILLIAM E. FITZPATRICK, Acting United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey (KRUTI DHARIA, Assistant U.S. Attorney, appearing) as attorney for the United States Postal Service and Stephan D. Johnson (collectively “the Federal Defendants”),will apply to this Court for an Order of Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. In support of this motion, the Federal Defendants respectfully refer the Court to the accompanying memorandum of law and papers in support, and request that this motion be decided on the papers submitted, without oral argument, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 31 2 Dated: Newark, New Jersey June 13, 2017 Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM E. FITZPATRICK Acting United States Attorney By: s/ Kruti Dharia KRUTI D. DHARIA Assistant United States Attorney Case 2:17-cv-01835-WJM-MF Document 12 Filed 06/13/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 32 WILLIAM E. FITZPATRICK Acting United States Attorney KRUTI D. DHARIA Assistant U.S. Attorney 970 Broad Street, Suite 700 Newark, N.J. 07102 Tel.: 973-645-2891 email: kruti.dharia@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY STACI SCONIERS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; STEPHAN D. JOHNSON; PROGRESSIVE GARDEN STATE INSURANCE COMPANY; ALPHA INSURANCE COMPANY; and DELTA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.

See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7–15. For the following reasons, Yardi’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART.