Legal Opinion

Wigington v. MacMartin

District Court, E.D. California

Decided September 1, 2022No. 2:21-cv-02355Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 1] Dane Wigington dba Geoengineering Watch, No. 2:21-cv-02355-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Douglas MacMartin, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Defendant Dr. Douglas MacMartin moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and 18 | failure to state a claim, and also moves to strike based on California’s Anti-SLAPP statute. Am. 19 | Mem. P. & A. Mot. Dismiss & Mot. Strike (Mot.) at 8, ECF No. 10.’ Plaintiff Dane Wigington 20 | opposes both motions, and the matter is fully briefed. See generally Opp’n, ECF No.…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Daimler AG v. BaumanSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
  2. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  3. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. Calder v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 2017

34 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