Legal Opinion
(PC) McMillan v. Ringler
District Court, E.D. California
Decided September 7, 2022No. 2:13-cv-00578Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Edwin D. MeMillan, No. 2:13-cv-00578-KJM-KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 S. Ringler, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Defendants move for partial summary judgment of plaintiff Edwin D. McMillan’s claims 18 | under California’s Bane Act for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Mr. McMillan 19 | opposes the motion. As explained below, the court grants the motion and dismisses 20 | Mr. McMillan’s Bane Act claims without prejudice to filing the claims in a separate suit. 21 | I. BACKGROUND 22 The court…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Shikeb Saddozai v. Ron DavisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2022
- John Fordley v. Joe LizarragaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2021
- Parthemore v. ColCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Kim v. Konad USA Distribution, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2014
- CITY OF OAKLAND, CAL. v. Hotels. Com LPCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.