Legal Opinion
Akmal v. Walgreens Company
District Court, E.D. California
Decided February 7, 2022No. 1:20-cv-01015Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SARA AKMAL, No. 1:20-cv-01015-DAD-SKO 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED 14 WALGREENS COMPANY, COMPLAINT 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 10) 16 17 18 Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. (Doc. 19 No. 10.) Pursuant to General Order No. 617 addressing the public health emergency posed by the 20 COVID-19 pandemic, plaintiff’s motion was taken under submission on the papers. (Doc. No. 21 11.) For the reasons…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Moss v. U.S. Secret ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Eminence Capital, Llc, and Jay Spechler v. Aspeon, Inc. Richard P. StackCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Addison v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Donald Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Company Foote, Cone and Belding and Time, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.