Legal Opinion
Rose v. Seamless Financial Corp.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided January 2, 2013No. Case No. 11cv00240 AJB (KSC)PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER:(1) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND(2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS
(Doc. No. 76).
ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA, District Judge.
Presently before the Court are Defendant Chad Hagobian’s (“Defendant” or “Hagobian”) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint and motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. (Doc. No. 76.) Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on November 26, 2012, (Doc. No. 78), and Defendant filed a reply on December 10, 2012, (Doc. No. 80). On December 21, 2012 the Court took both motions under submission…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
- In Re Tobacco II CasesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Fernandez v. Progressive Management SystemsDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2022