Judicial:

NUEVOS DESTINOS, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAMUEL PECK, et al., Defendants., No. 15-CV-1846 (EGS), 2019 WL 78780 (D.D.C. Jan. 2, 2019): 

This action arises out of an alleged racketeering scheme spanning about eight years whereby defendants—twenty-two companies and individuals—purportedly used otherwise legitimate business entities to defraud plaintiffs by making false promises to sell agricultural goods. Plaintiffs sue defendants for: (1) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)(“RICO”); (2) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)(conspiracy to violate RICO); (3) conspiracy to commit fraud; (4) fraud; and (5) breach of contracts. Pending before the Court are several motions: (1) nine defendants’ eight motions to dismiss; (2) one defendant’s motion to strike certain declarations; (3) plaintiffs’ two motions to allow alternate service for seven defendants; (4) plaintiffs’ motion for jurisdictional discovery.
The Court  considered the pending motions, the opposition memoranda, the replies thereto, the entire record herein, and the applicable law. The Court concluded that it lacks personal jurisdiction over the nine defendants and tgranded the eight pending motions to dismiss. The Court also concludes that jurisdictional discovery was not warranted and denied plaintiffs’ motion for jurisdictional discovery. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the relevant defendants, it denied as moot the plaintiffs’ motions for service and the motion to strike plaintiffs’ declarations.
In re Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C., 2018-Ohio-5206: 

Appellants,appeal from orders of the Power Siting Board granting a motion filed by intervening appellee, Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C. (“Black Fork”), requesting a two-year extension of Black Fork’s certificate to construct a proposed wind farm. Appellants argue that the two-year extension amounted to an “amendment” of the certificate under R.C. 4906.06(E) and 4906.07(B) and that the board therefore erred by granting Black Fork’s motion rather than complying with the statutory process for amending a certificate. Appellants also assert that the board’s failure to treat the two-year extension as an amendment allowed Black Fork to evade current turbine-setback requirements that apply when an existing certificate is amended.
The court concluded that the board’s extension of Black Fork’s certificate constitutes an amendment and that the board acted unlawfully in granting Black Fork’s motion rather than following the statutory procedures for amending a certificate. Because this error prejudiced appellants, we reverse the board’s orders and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.