Legal Opinion
Littel v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
District Court, C.D. California
Decided January 8, 2003No. CV-02-08836 CASPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
SNYDER, District Judge.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The instant action arises out of the alleged manufacture and sale of defectively designed automobile tires. On August 12, 2002, plaintiffs Roger Littel and Louann Pleasant, both California residents, commenced this action in Riverside County Superior Court against defendants Bridge-stone/Firestone, Inc., Bridgestone Corporation, Inc., and Does 1 through 100 (collectively “defendants”). Plaintiffs allege that the Steeltex R4S, R4SII and A/T…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Caterpillar Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Frank D. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., an Indiana CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- JOYCE v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLCDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2025
- MetroPCS, Inc. v. City & County of San FranciscoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Moody v. MunichDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 2023
- Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District v. Imperial Valley Healthcare DistrictDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2024