Pinpoint Holdings v. Vezer Industrial Professionals
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM *
PinPoint Holdings, Inc. (“PinPoint”) brings this interlocutory appeal from the district court’s order denying its motion for summary judgment. 1 PinPoint appeals, arguing only that the district court erred in failing to grant its motion for summary judgment on the basis that California Labor Code section 3864 requires all parties to an indemnification agreement to sign the agreement, and Vezer never signed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and reverse and remand.
California appellate courts have unequivocally held that, for an indemnification clause under section 3864…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v. Mercury Interactive Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Donovan v. RRL Corp.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Telco Leasing, Inc. v. Transwestern Title Co., D/B/A California Land Title Co. Of MarinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
- Marks v. Walter G. McCarty Corp.California Supreme Court · 1949
- City of Oakland v. Delcon AssociatesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.