Calloway et al v. AT&T Corp. et al
Filed: March 28, 2024
State: Illinois
Court: Illinois Northern District Court
Case Number: 1:2018cv06975
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. For the reasons stated in the Opinion, the Plaintiffs' motion 149 for conditional certification is denied, but without prejudice to moving for certification of a collective that is narrower than the Plaintiffs' currently proposed collective. The parties shall confer and then file a status report, on or before 04/08/2024, proposing the next steps of the litigation (the parties may contact the courtroom deputy…
Boyd v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC et al
Filed: March 26, 2024
State: Texas
Court: Texas Northern District Court
Case Number: 3:2023cv02882
ORDER Adopting 14 Findings and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 3/26/2024) (sxf)
AGBARA v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC et al
Filed: March 26, 2024
State: District of Columbia
Court: District Of Columbia District Court
Case Number: 1:2019cv02945
MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 79 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 3/26/24. (lce)
Adam Wells v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T Texas Appeal from 162nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County
Filed: March 11, 2024
State: Texas
Court: Fifth Court of Appeals
Case Number: 05-23-00004-CV
Larry Campbell, App. V. At&t, Inc. And The Dept. Of Labor & Industries, Res.
Filed: March 4, 2024
State: Washington
Court: Court of Appeals Division I
Case Number: 85100-4
Regents of the University of Minnesota v. AT&T Mobility LLC
Filed: February 28, 2024
State: Minnesota
Court: Minnesota District Court
Case Number: 0:2014cv04666
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Lauren Kindler (542) and DENYING Defendants Motion to Exclude Testimony and Opinions of Dr. Matthew Lynde (592). (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge John R Tunheim on 2/28/2024. Associated Cases: 0:14-cv-04666-JRT-TNL, 0:14-cv-04669-JRT-TNL, 0:14-cv-04671-JRT-TNL, 0:14-cv-04672-JRT-TNL(KKM)
Jones v. AT&T, Inc. et al
Filed: February 26, 2024
State: Louisiana
Court: Louisiana Eastern District Court
Case Number: 2:2020cv02337
ORDER AND REASONS denying 166 Motion for Reconsideration re 165 Judgment, 164 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Judge Greg Gerard Guidry on 2/26/2024. (lag)
Regents of the University of Minnesota v. AT&T Mobility LLC
Filed: February 23, 2024
State: Minnesota
Court: Minnesota District Court
Case Number: 0:2014cv04666
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part (536) Motion for Summary Judgment; denying (543) Motion for Summary Judgment; denying (580) Motion for Summary Judgment; denying (586) Motion for Summary Judgment in case 0: 14-cv-04666-JRT-TNL; granting in part and denying in part (568) Motion for Summary Judgment; denying (574) Motion for Summary Judgment ; denying (599) Motion for Summary Judgment; denying (614) Motion for Summary Judgment in case 0:14-cv-04669-JRT…
Regents of the University of Minnesota v. AT&T Mobility LLC
Filed: February 22, 2024
State: Minnesota
Court: Minnesota District Court
Case Number: 0:2014cv04666
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING Defendants' Appeal/Objection (723) and AFFIRMING the Magistrate Judge's Decision (719). (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on 2/22/2024. Associated Cases: 0:14-cv-04666-JRT-TNL, 0:14-cv-04669-JRT-TNL, 0:14-cv-04671-JRT-TNL, 0:14-cv-04672-JRT-TNL(KKM)
Schei et al v. AT&T Inc. et al
Filed: February 20, 2024
State: New York
Court: New York Southern District Court
Case Number: 1:2021cv00718
OPINION AND ORDER re: 166 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint addressed to Judge Katherine Polk Failla from Richard A. Schwartz dated December 18, 2023. filed by John Wantz, Network Apps, LLC, Kyle Schei, 157 MOTION for Reconsideration . filed by John Wantz, Network Apps, LLC, Kyle Schei. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs shall file their amended complaint on or…
AT&T Corp. v. Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc.
Filed: February 1, 2024
State: New York
Court: New York Southern District Court
Case Number: 1:2021cv04550
DECISION AND ORDER: MOTION TO AMEND: For the foregoing reasons, Atos's motion for leave to amend is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Atos's claims for fraudulent concealment (on the theory AT&T c oncealed its alleged collusion with the mole), aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, DTSA, unfair competition, and tortious interference. The motion is DENIED with respect to Atos's claims for fraudulent inducement, fraudulent…
Peerless Network, Inc. et al v. AT&T Corp.
Filed: January 2, 2024
State: New York
Court: New York Southern District Court
Case Number: 1:2015cv00870
ORDER granting 243 Motion for Attorney Fees; terminating 260 Letter Motion to Reopen re: 243 MOTION for Attorney Fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2), Local Civil Rule 54.1 and Paragraph F.5 of the parties Settl ement Agreement dated July 31, 2018., 260 LETTER MOTION to Reopen re: 243 MOTION for Attorney Fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2), Local Civil Rule 54.1 and Paragraph F.5 of the parties Settlement Agreement dated July 31, 2018. addressed…
AT&T Corp. v. Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc.
Filed: December 22, 2023
State: New York
Court: New York Southern District Court
Case Number: 1:2023cv01395
OPINION AND ORDER re: 17 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint. filed by Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc., 27 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 17 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint. ad dressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Leon Medzhibovsky dated June 14, 2023. filed by Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc.. Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. Nos. 17 and 27. SO ORDERED.…
W. A. Griffin, M.D. v. AT&T Services, Inc.
Filed: December 21, 2023
State: United States
Court: US Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Case Number: 23-11408
AT&T Corp. v. Enhanced Communications Group, LLC
Filed: December 18, 2023
State: Oklahoma
Court: Oklahoma Northern District Court
Case Number: 4:2021cv00314
OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge John F Heil, III : Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Amended Counterclaim is denied ; denying 118 Motion for Leave to File Document(s) (Re: 118 Opposed MOTION for Leave to File Amended Counterclaim ) (JFH1, Chambers)
AT&T Corp. v. Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc.
Filed: December 11, 2023
State: New York
Court: New York Southern District Court
Case Number: 1:2021cv04550
DECISION AND ORDER: MOTION TO AMEND: For the foregoing reasons, Atos's motion for leave to amend is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Atos's claims for fraudulent concealment (on the theory AT&T co ncealed its alleged collusion with the mole), aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, DTSA, unfair competition, and tortious interference. The motion is DENIED with respect to Atos's claims for fraudulent inducement, fraudulent…
Nguyen v. AT&T
Filed: November 30, 2023
State: United States
Court: US Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Case Number: 23-10277
Bey v. AT & T Mobility
Filed: November 6, 2023
State: South Carolina
Court: South Carolina District Court
Case Number: 8:2023cv05076
OPINION AND ORDER adopting 11 Report and Recommendation. It is ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 11/6/23.(arut)
AT&T CORP. AND BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC v. DONNA FELTNER, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS
Filed: October 6, 2023
State: Kentucky
Court: Court of Appeals
Case Number: 2023-CA-0051-ME
Forte et al v. AT&T Phones et al
Filed: October 5, 2023
State: Kentucky
Court: Kentucky Western District Court
Case Number: 5:2023cv00059
OPINION & ORDER: The Court dismisses Tyrese Wimberly without prejudice as a Plaintiff in this action and denies as moot the motion to withdraw (DN 11 ). The Court grants the applications to proceed without prepayment of fees (DNs 2 , 7 , 9 ) and dismisses the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. cc: counsel, Plaintiffs (pro se), Defendant (JM)
