Legal Opinion

(PS) Conerly v. Kaiser Permanente

District Court, E.D. California

Decided July 27, 2020No. 2:19-cv-02535Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES CONERLY, et al., No. 2:19-cv-2535 JAM DB PS 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 SHARIF TARPIN, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs James Conerly, Marilyn Tillman-Conerly, Carina Conerly, and M.T. are 18 proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with 19 Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Pending before the court are defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 32, 35, 39, 43, 60, 21 64), defendants’ motion to strike (ECF No. 63), and…

2Cases cited74 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002

69 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