|
New Mexico Lawyer Search - Listings for Acuna Mark Atty
Name: Acuna Mark Atty
Address: 1751 Old Pecos Trl Santa Fe, NM 87505
Phone Number: 505-989-9090
|
Specialties:
|
Real Estate Law
Adoption, Divorce & Family Law
Employment & Labor Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
RODRIGUEZ v. WHITING FARMS INC. FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit FEB 10 2004 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ELADIO RODRIGUEZ, individually; MARTIN GOMEZ, individually, Plaintiffs - Appellants, No. 02-1483 vs. WHITING FARMS, INC.; THOMAS WHITING, individually, Defendants - Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO (D.C. No. 99-RB-2490 (CBS)) Patricia L. Medige, Colorado Legal Services, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs - Appellants. Sam D. Starritt (and Michael C. Santo, on the brief), Dufford, Waldeck, Milburn & Krohn, L.L.P., Grand Junction, Colorado, for Defendants - Appellees. Before KELLY, HARTZ, Circuit Judges and CASSELL(1), District Judge. KELLY, Circuit Judge. (1) The Honorable Paul G. Cassell, United States District Judge for the District of Utah, sitting by designation. Plaintiffs-Appellants Eladio Rodriguez and Martin Gomez brought this suit against their former employer, Thomas Whiting and Whiting Farms, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Whiting Farms"), claiming Whiting Farms failed to pay them overtime as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA" or the "Act"). Whiting Farms argues it is exempt from paying Rodriguez and Gomez overtime under the FLSA agricultural exemption, which provides an exemption to the overtime wage requirements for "any employee employed in agriculture." 29 U.S.C. 213(b)(12). Rodriguez and Gomez filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether they performed nonagricultural jobs and thus were entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA. Whiting Farms also moved for summary judgment on all issues. The district court determined Rodriguez and Gomez were engaged in agricultural work and therefore were not entitled to overtime under the agricultural exemption. The district court granted Whiting Farms's motion for summary judgment and awarded costs to Whiting Farms. We have jurisdi...
GORMAN-BAKOS v CORNELL COOPERATIVE, U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of AppealsGORMAN-BAKOS v CORNELL COOPERATIVE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Second Circuit _ Spring Term, 2001 (Argued: March 14, 2001 Decided: June 04, 2001) Docket No. 00-9012, 00-9104 _ Lynn Gorman-Bakos and Rodney Bakos, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, -v.- Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Ellen Elliott, individually and as Executive Director of Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Angela Warner, individually and as agent, servant and employee of Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Mike Pierotti, individually and as President of Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Dorothy Foster, Bob Lindsay, Tim Manning, Marion Pierce, Jo Ann Rafilik, Steve Ras, Linda Rohmer, Sharon Sutton and Grace Underwood, individually and as directors of Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants. _ Before: Sotomayor, Katzmann, Circuit Judges, and Chin, District Judge.* _ Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., Chief Judge), granting defendants' motion for summary judgment because plaintiffs failed to offer sufficient proof of a causal connection between their allegedly constitutionally protected speech and their dismissal from defendants' 4-H program. Defendants-Cross-Appellants appeal the denial of their request for attorney's fees. The appeal is granted, and the judgment is vacated and remanded; the cross- appeal is denied as moot. _ L. John Van Norden, Schenectady, New York, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Lynn Gorman-Bakos and Rodney Bakos, Jeffrey T. Culkin, Gordon, Siegel, Mastro, Mullaney, Gordon & Galvin, P.C., Latham, New York, for Defendants-Appellees Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Ellen Elliott, individually and as Executive Director of Corne...
FINER FOODS INC v. AGRI In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 01-4024 Finer Foods, Inc., Petitioner, v. United States Department of Agriculture, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Agriculture Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act Submitted December 7, 2001-Decided December 11, 2001 Before Bauer, Easterbrook, and Williams, Circuit Judges. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge. Finer Foods, Inc., seeks a stay pending judicial review of an administrative order suspending its license to operate as a dealer under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. sec.sec. 499a- 499s. The Department of Agriculture offers two jurisdictional defenses. First, it contends, the court lacks personal juris diction over the Department because the petition for review was forwarded to federal officials in Washington, D.C., by fax rather than by mail, as the Hobbs Act requires. See 28 U.S.C. sec.2344. Second, it asserts, the court lacks subject- matter jurisdiction because there is no "final" administrative order. See 28 U.S.C. sec.2342(2). Both of these contentions are frivolous. We are surprised and disappointed that they have been advanced by counsel for the federal government. (We add for the sake of completeness that all three lawyers whose names appear on the papers work for the Department of Agriculture; the Department of Justice apparently has allowed the agency to represent itself.) Once a private party files a petition for review, this court's Clerk must serve the federal agency by registered mail (return receipt requested). In light of the disruptions to the postal system caused by terrorist activity in recent months, the Clerk has begun to forward papers by fax in addition to mail. Naturally the fax copy arrives first, for it is not delayed by any security screening procedures. Why should this step deprive the court of personal jurisdiction over the Department? In this case, notice was sent by mail ...
|
|
|