Legal Opinion

Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp.

District Court, S.D. California

Decided September 26, 2003No. 3:93-mj-00476PublishedCited by 52 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF HY-DRANAUTICS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

WHELAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff Hydranauties (“Plaintiff’) moves for partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant FilmTec Corporation (“Defendant”) opposes. The Court finds the matter suitable for disposition on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civil Local Rule 7.1(d.l). For the reasons expressed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 17, 1977 Midwest Research Institute (“MRI”) scientist John…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988

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

3Cited by52 opinions

  1. James T. Mitchell v. 10th and the Bypass, LLC, and Elway, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2012
  2. (PS) Schmitz v. AsmanDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
  3. (PS) Schmitz v. AsmanDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
  4. Arellano, Jr. v. DeanDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2020
  5. Cymbidium Restoration Trust v. American Homeowner Preservation Trust Series AHP Servicing, et al.District Court, W.D. Washington · 2026

47 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