Legal Opinion
Daniel Ramirez v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
District Court, C.D. California
Decided August 26, 2019No. 2:19-cv-05305Unknown
1Opinion
3 Moye □□ peony 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANIEL RAMIREZ, ) Case No. CV 19-5305 FMO (RAOx) " Plaintiff, 12 ) V. ) ORDER Re: MOTION TO REMAND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 14] INC., et al. ) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Having reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to plaintiff Daniel Ramirez’s (“plaintiff’) Motion to Remand and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Dkt. 27, “Motion”), the court concludes that oral argument is not necessary to resolve the Motion, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; 20 || Local Rule 7-15; Willis v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 244 F.3d…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Frank D. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., an Indiana CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Antonio Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co Shell Oil Company, D/B/A Shell Chemical Company, and Shell Agricultural Chemical CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.