Legal Opinion

Conte v. Jakks Pacific, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California

Decided November 5, 2013No. 1:12-CV-00006-LJO-GSAPublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

LAWRENCE J. O’NEILL, District Judge.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT TO PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseload in the nation, and this Court is unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters. This Court cannot address all arguments, evidence and matters raised by parties and addresses only the arguments, evidence and matters necessary to reach the decision in this order given the shortage of district judges and staff. The…

2Cases cited45 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  5. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970

40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. (PC) Thompson v. GomezDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
  2. Avalanche Funding, LLC v. ArifDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
  3. Beech v. San Joaquin CountyDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
  4. Clements v. T-Mobile USA, IncDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2023
  5. Evans v. JacobsenDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021

3 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