Legal Opinion
Florence v. Stanback
District Court, C.D. California
Decided March 23, 2009No. CV 07-8184 RSWL (FMO)PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER Re: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
RONALD S.W. LEW, Senior, District Judge.
The Court has reviewed and considered defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration and concludes that oral argument is not necessary to resolve this motion. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7-15; Willis v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 244 F.3d 675, 684 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001, as amended Mar. 27, 2001).
On June 9, 2008, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”). On October'6, 2008, the Magistrate Judge denied the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. (Court’s Order of October 6, 2008, at…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- United States v. RaddatzSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Ocelot Oil Corporation v. Sparrow IndustriesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1988
- Roell v. WithrowSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- United States v. Abisai Rivera-GuerreroCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- United States v. Mark Alan WeissbergerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1992
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Tempay, Inc. v. Biltres Staffing of Tampa Bay, LLCDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 2013
- (PC) Davis, Sr. v. CloakDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
- (PC) Wilson v. BucatoDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
- Angelo v. Thomson International, IncorporatedDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
- BROWN v. WOLFDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2021
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.