Legal Opinion
Oliver v. IN-N-Out Burgers
District Court, S.D. California
Decided May 10, 2013No. Case No. 12-CV-767-H (DHB)PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES
MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge.
On April 10, 2013, Defendant In-N-Out Burgers (“In-N-Out”) filed a motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees. (Doc. No. 70.) On April 29, 2013, Plaintiff A.J. Oliver filed a response in opposition to In-N-Out’s motion. (Doc. No. 78.) On May 6, 2013, In-N-Ouf filed its reply. (Doc. No. 81.) On May 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed objections to In-N-Out’s reply. (Doc. No. 84.) On May 7, 2013, the Court took the matter under submission. (Doc. No. 83.) For the reasons below, the Court denies In-N-Out’s motion…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Roadway Express, Inc. v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- David M. Fink v. James H. Gomez, Director, Diana Carloni NourseCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- PRIMUS AUTOMOTIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rudolph A. BATARSE, Defendant, Jan C. Nielsen, AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Moore v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2015
- Lundstrom v. YoungDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2019
- Outlaw Laboratory, LP v. DG in PB, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2019
- Williams & Cochrane, LLP v. Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian ReservationDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2020