Legal Opinion
Vasic v. Patenthealth, L.L.C.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided March 22, 2016No. Case No. 13-cv-849-BAS(MDD)PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[ECF No. 70]
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, United States District Judge
On April 8, 2013, Plaintiff Dragan Vasic commenced this class action arising out of the advertising and sale of a glucosamine-based health supplement. On April 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Patent Health, LLC and Arthur Middleton (collectively, “Defendants”). (ECF No. 40.) Defendants now move for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposes.
The Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- T.W. Electrical Service, Inc. v. Pacific Electrical Contractors Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- In re Dealer Management Systems Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Illinois · 2019
- Breen v. PruterCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
- Beaver v. Omni Hotels Management CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2021
- Maeda v. Kennedy Endeavors, Inc.District Court, D. Hawaii · 2019
- Teton Global Investments LLC v. LC Investment 2010, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2021