Legal Opinion
Stensrud v. Friedberg
District Court, D. Arizona
Decided March 31, 2023No. 4:22-cv-00062Unknown
1Opinion
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Betty Stensrud, No. CV-22-00062-TUC-JCH (BGM) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Thomas Friedberg, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This is a discovery dispute in a dog-bite case. Defendants seek leave to notice two 16 non-parties at fault after the deadline to do so. The non-parties are allegedly responsible 17 for ignoring information that Defendants' dog was vaccinated against rabies and giving 18 Plaintiff a $33,000 rabies-vaccine series anyway. Defendants allege the non-parties could 19 not have been timely…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Hanna v. PlumerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Temple v. Synthes Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Haines v. Liggett Group Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Desert Empire Bank, Etc. v. Insurance Co. Of North America, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.