Legal Opinion
Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided May 30, 2023No. 3:15-cv-05128Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAEF LAWSON, Case No. 15-cv-05128-JSC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ENTRY OF 9 v. JUDGMENT 10 GRUBHUB, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 317 Defendants. 11 12 13 Before the Court is Grubhub’s motion for entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 14 Procedure 54(b), or in the alternative to certify an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) 15 and to stay. (Dkt. No. 317.)1 Having carefully considered the briefing, the Court determines oral 16 argument is unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), VACATES the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- David P. Pagtalunan v. George Galaza, Warden Thomas Maddock, Acting Director, California Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Swint v. Chambers County CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- In Re Cement Antitrust Litigation (Mdl No. 296). State of Arizona v. Ideal Basic Industries, State of Arizona v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona, and Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation, Real Parties in Interest. State of Arizona v. Ash Grove Cement CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. ArcherCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.