Legal Opinion
Trazo v. Nestlé USA, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided July 10, 2015No. Case No. 5:12-cv-02272-PSGPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
PAUL S. GREWAL, United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Jude Trazo, individually and on behalf of similarly situated Plaintiffs, moves for reconsideration of his unjust enrichment/quasi-contract claim. Because the Ninth Circuit recently decided that the duplicative nature of an unjust enrichment/quasi-contract claim is not a valid reason to dismiss it, the court GRANTS Trazo’s motion.1
I
“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.California Supreme Court · 2003
- School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- Skye Astiana v. the Hain Celestial GroupCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Le v. Kohls Department Stores, Inc.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2016
- Rojas-Lozano v. Google, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2016
- Valencia v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2015
- Corpuz v. Walmart, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2023
- Khasin v. R. C. Bigelow, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2015
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.