Legal Opinion

Schmidt v. Levi Strauss & Co.

District Court, N.D. California

Decided March 28, 2008No. C-04-01026 RMWPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE JURY DEMAND FOR SARBANES-OXLEY CLAIM

RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge.

Defendants Levi Strauss & Co. (“Levi”) and Laura Liang (“Liang”) move to strike plaintiffs Robert Schmidt’s (“Schmidt”) and Thomas Walsh’s (“Walsh”) demand for a jury trial as to plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. Defendants argue that there is no right to a jury trial conferred by either § 1514A or the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The court has read the…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Crowell v. BensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  3. Granfinanciera, S.A. v. NordbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Lorillard v. PonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. Davis v. Michigan Department of the TreasurySupreme Court of the United States · 1989

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Brinker v. Axos BankDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2022
  2. Comcast Corporation v. United States Department Of LaborDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2025
  3. Edwards v. First Trust Portfolios LPDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 2025

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API