Legal Opinion

Castillo v. Goldsborough

District Court, E.D. California

Decided March 28, 2025No. 2:22-cv-00588Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUDY R. CASTILLO, 12 Plaintiff, No. 2:22-cv-00588-TLN-AC 13 v. 14 MARIS GOLDSBOROUGH, ORDER 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Maris Goldsborough’s (“Defendant”) 18 Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff Rudy R. Castillo (“Plaintiff”) filed an 19 opposition. (ECF No. 24.) Defendant filed a reply. (ECF No. 27.) For the reasons set forth 20 below, Defendant’s motion is DENIED. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL…

2Cases cited22 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. Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987

17 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