Legal Opinion

In Re Cases Filed by DIRECTV, Inc.

District Court, D. Arizona

Decided November 9, 2004No. CV 03-00967-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00968-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00971-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00972-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00973-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00976-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00977-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00978-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00981-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00982-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00989-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00993-PHX (HRH); CV 03-00999-PHX (HRH); CV 03-01002-PHX (HRH); CV 03-01774-PHX (HRH); CV 03-01776-PHX (HRH); CV 03-01794-PHX (HRH); CV 03-02147-PHX (HRH); CV 03-02181-PHX (HRH); CV 03-02182-PHX (HRH); CV 03-02450-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00172-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00177-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00180-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00182-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00184-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00185-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00193-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00196-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00502-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00503-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00504-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00505-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00507-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00508-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00509-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00664-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00665-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00805-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00807-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00808-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00809-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00810-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00812-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00813-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00814-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00815-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00816-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00817-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00818-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00819-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00821-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00822-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00828-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00829-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00832-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00835-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00836-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00837-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00840-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00842-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00844-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00850-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00851-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00852-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00853-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00854-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00856-PHX (HRH); CV 04-01374-PHX (HRH); CV 04-01898-PHX (HRH); CV 04-01899-PHX (HRH); CV 04-02040-PHX (HRH); CV 03-02180-PCT (HRH); CV 04-00181-PCT (HRH); CV 04-00194-PCT (HRH); CV 04-00841-PCT (HRH); CV 04-00846-PCT (HRH); CV 04-00044-TUC (HRH); CV 04-00045-TUC (HRH); CV 04-1153-TUC (HRH); CV 04-00202-TUC (HRH); CV 04-00203-TUC (HRH); CV 04-00204-TUC (HRH); CV 04-00205-TUC (HRH); CV 04-00207-TUC (HRH)PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

HOLLAND, District Judge.

GENERAL ORDER NO. 3

This Order Pertains to the Following Related Cases:

Motions to Dismiss; Statutes of Limitations Issues

Defendants Michael and Zahecha Red-fern move the court to dismiss all of plaintiff DirecTV’s claims as barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. 1 This motion is opposed. 2 Oral argument was not requested and is not deemed necessary.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendants Michael and Zaheeha Red-fern were previously named as defendants in a related case, DirecTV, Inc. v. Long, CV 03-0991-PHX (HRH), which was filed on May 23, 2003. On March 4,…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Jena Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department Al Olsen, Police Chief, Individually and as a Police AgentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  3. Wilson v. GarciaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of TeamstersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. Navarro v. BlockCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Directv, Inc. v. Jeff BuddenCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2005
  2. Giacometti v. Arton Bermuda Ltd. (In Re Sia)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Hawaii · 2006
  3. Kathleen Bliss v. Corecivic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
  4. Directv, Inc. v. RodkeyDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2005
  5. GARDEN CITY BOXING CLUB, INC. v. JohnsonDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 2008

3 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