Legal Opinion
Doe v. Unocal Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 27, 2001No. 99-55576PublishedCited by 336 opinions
1Per curiam
We affirm the district court’s judgment and adopt the portions of its opinion, Doe v. Unocal, 27 F.Supp.2d 1174 (C.D.Cal.1998), appearing in the Appendix as our own. See Appendix infra.
Because appellants have failed to demonstrate by the “clearest showing that denial of discovery [has] resulted] in actual and substantial prejudice,” the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery on the question of specific jurisdiction. See Butcher’s Union Local No. 198 v. SDC Investment, Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 540 (9th Cir.1986) (citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
APPENDIX*
PAEZ, District Judge.
I
INT…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by336 opinions
- Daimler AG v. BaumanSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Boschetto v. HansingCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Learjet, Inc. v. Oneok, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Loredana Ranza v. Nike, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
331 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.