Legal Opinion
Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 29, 2010No. 08-35966PublishedCited by 450 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CUDAHY, Circuit Judge:
The question presented here is whether the district court erred in dismissing the claims of Coto Settlement (Coto) as barred by the statute of limitations. Coto claims that it is entitled to part of $1.4 million refunded by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) following a judgment against Coto, Ian Eisenberg and other entities. Eisenberg and Olympic Telecommunications, Inc. (Olympic), owned by Eisenberg, contend that, if Coto had a claim for conversion of those funds, it accrued in 2000, and is therefore time-barred. Coto maintains instead that its claims did not accrue…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- United States v. Donald Lawrence Ritchie, Heather Horner, Claimant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Lee v. City of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by450 opinions
- Hebbe v. PlilerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Karim Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
- Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2015
- Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Tamer Salameh v. Tarsadia HotelCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
445 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.