Legal Opinion

Barnett v. Garrigan

District Court, N.D. California

Decided June 24, 2022No. 3:20-cv-02585Unknown

1Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANDREW BARNETT, et al., Case No. 20-cv-02585-VC Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND v. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY BERNARD GARRIGAN, et al., JUDGMENT Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 144 The defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part because the plaintiffs have not offered any evidence from which a jury could find that their injuries were caused by their exposure to the mold in their house. However, the plaintiffs’ claims can go forward to the extent that they seek economic damages unrelated to their…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Norgart v. Upjohn Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Clausen v. M/V New CarissaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  3. Stephen Wendell v. Glaxosmithkline LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
  4. Golden v. CH2M HILL HANFORD GROUP, INC.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  5. William L. Lyon & Associates, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012

1 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