Legal Opinion
Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. City of Walnut Creek
District Court, N.D. California
Decided April 13, 2006No. C-05-4723 MMCPublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND/OR TO ABSTAIN
CHESNEY, District Judge.
Before the Court is the motion filed February 27, 2006 by defendants City of Walnut Creek and the City Council of the City of Walnut Creek (jointly, “City”) seeking dismissal, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and/or abstention. Plaintiff Pacific Bell Telephone Company, doing business as AT & T California (“AT & T”) has filed opposition to the motion; the City has filed a reply. Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, and the…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- 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
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Fresno Unified School District v. K.U.District Court, E.D. California · 2013
- Office of Consumer Counsel v. Southern New England Telephone Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2007
- Sprint Telephony Pcs, L.P. v. County Of San DiegoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. County of San DiegoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Illinois Bell Telephone v. VILLAGE OF ITASCA, ILL.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2008
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.