Legal Opinion
Berg v. Leason
District Court, N.D. California
Decided July 1, 1992No. C 92-20283 JWPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S' MOTION TO DISMISS
WARE, District Judge.
Plaintiff Carl E. Berg moves to remand this action to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED. Moreover, Defendants Hayden Leason, et al., move to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, contending it is time barred by the statute of limitations. Additionally, Defendants move to dismiss Defendants Stephen V. Bomse, Spencer Hosie, Stuart C. Clark, and Stanley Young because they were not named as…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. MottleySupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Bankers Trust Co. v. MallisSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- American Well Works Company v. Layne and Bowler CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Carl E. Berg v. Hayden Leason Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe Paul AlexanderCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Hill v. MarstonCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1994
- Hill v. MarstonCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1994