State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United Van Lines, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
FURTHER ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CONTI, District Judge.
1. INTRODUCTION
Defendants United Van Lines, Turlock Van and Storage, LDM Moving Services, and Jerry John Van Lengen (collectively “.United”) move for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff State Farm Fire and Casualty’s (“State Farm”) Carmack Amendment 1 claims are barred by failure to file a timely written notice of claim.
II. APPLICABLE STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine issue of, material fact and, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9041, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,994 Comsource Independent Foodservice Companies, Inc., a Georgia Corporation v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Utah CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Landess v. North American Van Lines, Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 1997
- Aida Dayton Technologies Corp. v. I.T.O. Corp. of BaltimoreDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2001
- Aida Dayton Technologies Corp. v. Trism Specialized Carriers, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2001
- Bruker Instruments, Inc. v. Bay State Moving Systems, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1998
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.