Legal Opinion
Medrano v. D'Arrigo Bros. Co. of California
District Court, N.D. California
Decided December 19, 2000No. C-00-20826 JFPublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
[Docket No. 12]
FOGEL, District Judge.
Defendant D’Arrigo Brothers Company of California (“D’Arrigo”) moves for dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Alternatively, D’Arrigo asks the Court to apply a two year limitations period to Plaintiffs’ first four causes of action. The Court has read the moving and responding papers and has considered the oral arguments of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
This case was filed as a class action by current and former employees…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Howard Wool v. Tandem Computers Incorporated, Robert C. Marshall, Henry v. Morgan, and James G. TreybigCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Robert S. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Mgic Indemnity Corporation v. Lawrence I. Weisman, Thomas P. Dunn, L.N. Nevels, Jr., and Henry K.F. KerstingCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers Bodine Produce Company, Inc. Robert Fletcher, D/B/A Fletcher FarmsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Bell v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Jimenez v. Servicios Agricolas Mex, Inc.District Court, D. Arizona · 2010
- De Leon-Granados v. Eller & Sons Trees, Inc.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 2008
- Doe v. D.M. Camp & SonsDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2008
- Medrano v. D'Arrigo Bros. Co. of CaliforniaDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2004
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.