Legal Opinion
Alexander Graham-Sult v. Nicholas Clainos
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 27, 2013No. 11-16779, 12-15892PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs Alexander Graham-Suit and David Graham appeal the district court’s disposition of: (1) a motion to dismiss; (2) a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute; and (3) related attorney’s fees awards.
We affirm the disposition of the motion to strike in part and reverse in part. Striking Plaintiffs’ conversion and unjust enrichment claims against Nicholas Clai-nos was erroneous, because: (a) taking possession of personal property, (b) preparing and executing an assignment of intellectual property following a probate court’s final…
2Cases cited56 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USACourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
- Flatley v. MauroCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Graham-Sult v. ClainosCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Alexander Graham-Sult v. Nicholas ClainosCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Escalante v. San Francisco Community College District, and Board of TrusteesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2019
- MABEE v. ECKROTEDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2020
- Steven Gregory Sloat, Ed Bryan, Church of Scientology International, David J. Lubow, and Monty Drake v. Monique Rathbun, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2015