Legal Opinion
Ahmed Jamal v. Dodge & Cox, et al.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided April 3, 2026No. 4:25-cv-01675Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AHMED JAMAL, Case No. 25-cv-01675-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT DODGE & COX’S MOTION FOR 9 v. PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 10 DODGE & COX, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 33 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant Dodge & Cox’s (“Dodge & Cox” or “D&C” or 14 “Defendant”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Mot.”), Dkt. No. 33.1 The Motion is fully 15 briefed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition (“Opp.”), Dkt. No. 35; Defendant’s Reply (“Reply”), Dkt. No. 16 36. The Court finds the Motion appropriate for…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Andrew G. YARTZOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lee M. THOMAS, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Himely v. RoseSupreme Court of the United States · 1809
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.