Legal Opinion
Lingle v. Centimark Corp.
District Court, E.D. California
Decided April 17, 2023No. 2:22-cv-01471Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Anthony Lingle, No. 2:22-cev-01471-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER AND RULE 16 B SCHEDULING ORDER 14 Centimark Corporation, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Anthony Lingle asserts several wage and hour claims against his former 18 | employer, defendant Centimark Corporation, and he seeks to represent a class of similarly 19 | situated workers. Centimark moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and to strike under Rule 12(f). 20 | As explained in this order, the court converts the motion to strike to a…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Jena Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department Al Olsen, Police Chief, Individually and as a Police AgentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Parks School of Business, Inc., Dba Parks College, a New Mexico Corporation v. Fife Symington Roy A. Nicholson Sally HeinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.