Legal Opinion
DeMarco v. Depotech Corp.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided March 2, 2001No. 3:98-cr-00675PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION TO AMEND JUDGMENT
WHELAN, District Judge.
On February 9, 2001 Defendants Depo-tech Corporation, et al. (“Defendants”) moved ex parte to amend this Court’s judgment dated January 26, 2001 (hereinafter “judgment”). (Doc. No. 100.) Specifically, Defendants request that this Court amend its judgment to include findings under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs timely opposed. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that all parties have complied with Rule 11 such that amendment of the judgment is not warranted.
I.BACKGROUND
On April…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Smith v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Charles E. McDowell Jr. v. Arthur Calderon, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- De La Fuente v. DCI Telecommunications, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2003
- In Re Cross Media Marketing Corporation Securities LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2004
- Manchester Mgmt. Co. v. Echo Therapeutics, Inc.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2018
- Gorman v. CooganDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2004
- Saetes v. expHand, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2020