David Barlow

“Defendants' motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED. ... The claims brought against Defendants after that time are therefore time barred ... and the claims asserted against them do not relate back to the earlier complaints.”

“Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED. ... Because the Original Complaint was timely and substantively alleged discrimination under Title VII and because the Amended Complaint relates back to the original complaint, the claims therein are still timely.”

“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. ... the requested accommodation would grant the disabled residents of Square One's facility a group housing opportunity not available to anyone else in that particular zone.”

“Consequently, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to their third cause of action is DENIED. ... Because the requested accommodation was not 'necessary' under the FHA, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.”

“Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motions are DENIED. ... Plaintiffs have failed to show that the court's consideration of Alexander constituted clear error ... a final judgment must be 'dead wrong' to constitute clear error.”

“GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART [149] [150] [152] [156] DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS ... the following claims are dismissed without prejudice: [Rule 10b-5, Securities Act Sec. 12(a)(1)/Sec. 15, Exchange Act Sec. 20 control-person, conversion, RICO, conspiracy, FDUTPA, unjust enrichment] ... Plaintiffs may seek leave to amend their complaint within sixty days of the date of this decision and order.”

“Because the Court finds that a genuine dispute of material fact exists in this case as to the authority of Chris Bowden to bind Risun Construction to the GIA, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”

“For the foregoing reasons, Home Depot's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. ... in light of Plaintiffs' concessions of fact and law, the court agrees that, as a matter of law, Home Depot did not owe Brian a duty of care.”

“Accordingly, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Rock Tops' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The court dismisses without prejudice Bedrock's claim under the Utah Unfair Competition Act under Rule 12(b)(6). The remainder of Rock Tops' Motion is denied.”

“For the forgoing reasons, the court DENIES Defendant's motion for summary judgment. ... several of the most important [King of the Mountain] factors on this record weigh in favor of Bedrock ... likelihood of confusion is left for the jury.”

“Rock Tops' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to actual damages. It is otherwise DENIED. Rock Tops is granted leave to file a motion addressing Bedrock's equitable and statutory damages.”

“the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation WITHOUT MODIFICATION. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Join Thomas Olson as a Counterclaim Defendant is DENIED.”

“Olson's motion requesting that his counterclaims against Ol Private be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) is GRANTED ... because the court does not have jurisdiction over Olson's counterclaims, all other considerations related to voluntary dismissal under Rule 41 are irrelevant, and the counterclaims must be dismissed.”