Legal Opinion

DAVIS WINE COMPANY v. Vina Y Bodega Estampa, SA

District Court, D. Oregon

Decided October 13, 2011No. 03:10-cv-00650-HUPublished

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

HUBEL, United States Magistrate Judge:

Currently before the court is defendant Vina Y Bodega Estampa, S.A.’s (“Estampa”) motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56(c) or, alternatively, to dismiss plaintiff Davis Wine Company’s (“DWC”) claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). All parties have consented to entry of final judgment by a Magistrate Judge in accordance with Rule 73 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the reasons set forth…

2Cases cited51 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986

46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API