Legal Opinion
Arthur Rosengren v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation
District Court, C.D. California
Decided July 1, 2020No. 2:19-cv-09064Unknown
1Opinion
Lance D. Wilson SBN 183852 2 lance.wilson@tuckerellis.com 201 Mission Street, Suite 2310 3 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415.617.2400 4 Facsimile: 415.617.2409 5 TUCKER ELLIS LLP 6 Justin E. Garratt SBN 253520 justin.garratt@tuckerellis.com 7 515 South Flower Street Forty-Second Floor 8 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223 Telephone: 213.430.3400 9 Facsimile: 213.430.3409 10 Attorneys for Defendant RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 11 f/k/a United Technologies Corporation (erroneously sued as “successor-in-interest to PRATT & WHITNEY ENGINE 12 SERVICES, INC.”) 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Harold D. Blankenship, an Individual v. The Hearst Corporation, a Corporation, William H. Myers, an IndividualCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- Ross-Hime Designs, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
- Shuldener v. Trio Water Engineering Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1936