Legal Opinion
Carl Jimena v. Clive Standish
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 17, 2013No. 11-16845UnpublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM **
Carl L. Jimena appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging claims for fraud, violation of state commercial codes, and intentional tort. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Estate of Tucker ex rel Tucker v. Interscope Records, Inc., 515 F.3d 1019, 1029 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Jimena failed to present admissible evidence establishing a genuine dispute of material fact regarding UBS AG’s liability. See id. at 1032 n. 14 (nonmoving party must establish…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Liteky v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Robin Orr v. Bank of America, Nt & SaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Ollie B. Hadley, Plaintiff-Counterclaim-Defendant-Appellant v. United States of America, Defendant-Counterclaimant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Estate of Tucker Ex Rel. Tucker v. InterscopeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Abbott v. Elwood Staffing Services Inc.District Court, N.D. Alabama · 2014
- SteppeChange LLC v. Veon Ltd.District Court, N.D. California · 2018
- Helen Vanvakaris v. Fashion Forms, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2019
- Jimena v. StandishSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- La Jolla Spa MD, Inc. v. Avidas Pharmaceuticals, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2019
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.