Legal Opinion

Douglas A. Scott v. PerkinElmer Health Sciences, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California

Decided April 10, 2026No. 5:24-cv-03389Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DOUGLAS A. SCOTT, Case No. 24-cv-03389-SVK 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S RULE 60(b) MOTION FOR RELIEF 10 PERKINELMER HEALTH SCIENCES, FROM FINAL JUDGMENT INC., 11 Re: Dkt. No. 31 Defendant. 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Final Judgment Pursuant to Federal 14 Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Dkt. 31 (the “Motion”). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the 15 Court determines that the Motion is suitable for decision without oral argument. Civil L.R.…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
  5. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API