Legal Opinion

Estakhrian v. Obenstine

District Court, C.D. California

Decided January 29, 2017No. CV 11-3480 FMO (CWx)PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Re: Motion for Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication

The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Having reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to defendant Mark Obenstine’s (“defendant” or “Oben-stine”) Joint Brief Concerning [His] Motion for Summary Judgment / Adjudication of Issues (Dkt. 433, “MSJ Jt. Br.”), the court finds that oral argument is not necessary to resolve the motion, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15; Willis v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 244 F.3d 675, 684 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001), and concludes as follows.

INTRODU…

2Cases cited35 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. Lujan v. National Wildlife FederationSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  5. United States v. James C. DunkelCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency v. Whittaker CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2024
  2. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2019
  3. Parks v. Ethicon, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API