Legal Opinion
Dang v. Pontier
District Court, S.D. California
Decided December 18, 2020No. 3:19-cv-01519Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH DANG d/b/a LAW OFFICE OF Case No.: 19CV1519-GPC(AHG) JOSEPH DANG, an individual, 12 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff, 13 COUNTERDEFENDANT DANG’S v. MOTION TO ENJOIN FURTHER 14 PROSECUTION OF LATER FILED DAVID PONTIER, an individual; 15 SUIT TEOCO Corporation Group Benefit Plan, [Dkt. No. 133.] 16 a self-funded group health plan; TEOCO Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; 17 UMR Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Glenn 18 C. Nusbaum, an individual; Paul E. Kim, MD Inc., A California corporation; Kevin 19 Yoo, an…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Decker Coal Company v. Commonwealth Edison CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Pacesetter Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. And Med Rel Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- Church of Scientology v. United States Department of the ArmyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
- Kohn Law Group, Inc. v. Auto Parts Manufacturing Mississippi, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.