Legal Opinion

Camenisch v. Umpqua Bank

District Court, N.D. California

Decided June 25, 2024No. 5:20-cv-05905Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SHELA CAMENISCH, et al., 10 Case No. 20-cv-05905-RS Plaintiffs, 11 v. ORDER RE CHOICE OF LAW AND 12 PREJUDGMENT INTEREST CLAIM UMPQUA BANK, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 The factual and procedural background of this action has been set out in prior orders and 17 will not be recounted here. Defendant now moves for (1) a determination that California law 18 cannot be applied to the claims of at least some of the plaintiff class members who currently reside 19 in other states or in foreign countries, and that therefore…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. New Hampshire v. MaineSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  2. Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
  3. Lien Huynh v. Chase Manhattan BankCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
  4. In Re Marriage of BondsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Hydranautics v. Filmtec Corporation, OpinionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000

4 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