Legal Opinion
BAM PROPERTIES LLC v. CITY OF OROVILLE, et al.
District Court, E.D. California
Decided August 18, 2026No. 2:26-cv-00041Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BAM PROPERTIES LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00041-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CITY OF OROVILLE, et al., (ECF No. 17) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendants City of Oroville, Patrick Piatt, and Richard 18 Stanford’s motion to strike in part and to dismiss Plaintiff BAM Properties LLC’s First 19 Amended Complaint (“FAC”).1 (ECF No. 17.) For the reasons that follow, the Court 20 DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike and GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 /…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Jena Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department Al Olsen, Police Chief, Individually and as a Police AgentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Meachum v. FanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.