Legal Opinion

Television Signal Corp. v. City & County of San Francisco

District Court, N.D. California

Decided June 28, 2000No. C-99-2081-VRWPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

WALKER, District Judge.

Before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs first amended complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to FRCP 41(b) and 4(m). The court finds the motion suitable for determination without oral argument. See Civil LR 7 — 1(b). The hearing scheduled for June 29, 2000, at 2:00 pm, is therefore, VACATED.

Television Signal Corporation filed this action on April 30, 1999, challenging the City and County of San Francisco’s adoption of amendments to its excavation code. These amendments impose fees, conditions and costs on entities which open, trench or…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Patricia Scott Anderson v. Air West, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
  2. Yourish v. California AmplifierCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
  3. Shihshu Walter Wei v. State of HawaiiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
  4. Echevarria v. Department of Correctional ServicesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1999
  5. Geller v. NewellDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1984

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. (PS)Laipply v. LaipplyDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
  2. Carlos Flores v. City of Los AngelesDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2022
  3. Mortera v. Guam Police DeptSuperior Court of Guam · 2018
  4. Pries v. City of AntiochDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2023
  5. Raiser v. San Diego CountyDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API