Legal Opinion

Pang v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.

District Court, N.D. California

Decided March 4, 2019No. Case No. 18-cv-01882-PJHPublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, United States District Judge

Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc.'s ("Samsung") motion to compel arbitration came on for hearing before this court on February 27, 2019. Plaintiffs appeared through their counsel, Michael Woerner. Defendant appeared through its counsel, Michael McCarthy and Robert Herrington. Having read the papers filed by the parties and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART defendant's motion, for the following reasons.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. ByrdSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2019
  3. Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass'n v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Lifescan, Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Services, Inc., a Florida CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
  5. Norcia v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Soo v. Lorex CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API