Legal Opinion
Gimenez v. Gunnar Optiks, LLC
District Court, S.D. California
Decided January 16, 2024No. 3:23-cv-00671Unknown
1Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 Gaston Procopio GIMENEZ, individually Case No.: 23-cv-0671-AGS-VET and on behalf of all others similarly 5 situated, ORDER GRANTING REMAND 6 MOTION (ECF 4) AND CLOSING Plaintiff, CASE 7 v. 8 GUNNAR OPTIKS, LLC, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Plaintiff’s remand motion turns on one question: Under California law, is substitute 12 service on a company valid, even when plaintiffs have not made reasonably diligent 13 attempts to serve the company personally? The answer is yes. 14 BACKGROUND 15 Plaintiff Gaston Gimenez sued defendant Gunnar…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- 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
- Babasa v. LensCrafters, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Kamm v. ITEX CORP.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Bein v. Brechtel-Jochim Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1992
- Evartt v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.