Legal Opinion

Daniel O'Connell v. Jose Fernandez-Pol

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided September 30, 2013No. 10-17450UnpublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant Dr. Jose Fernandez-Pol (“Dr. Pol”) appeals the district court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings after the district court struck Dr. Pol’s answer as a discovery sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, and entered judgment in the form and amount requested by Plaintiffs. Dr. Pol contends the district court erred because: (1) the action was allowed to proceed even though Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations; (2) actual and punitive damages were awarded without taking any evidence of damages; and…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De GuineeSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. BMW of North America, Inc. v. GoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. Day v. McDonoughSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  4. Fair Housing of Marin, a California Non-Profit Corporation v. Jack Combs, D.B.A. Waters Edge ApartmentsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
  5. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2008

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Sanchez v. RodriguezDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2014
  2. (PS) Ferrantino v. Sacramento County Office of EducationDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
  3. Al-Bustani v. AlgerDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2024
  4. Al-Bustani v. AlgerDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2023
  5. Amazon.com Inc v. WongDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2023

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

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

Powered by the Exa API