District Court for the Central District of California Court Cases

Search
  1. Neilson v. Union Bank of California, NA (2003)

    R. Alexander Pilmer, Amanda Jane Wong, Christopher Thomas Casamassima, and Richard L. Wynne, Kirkland & Ellis, and Mary E. Newcombe, Caldwell, Leslie, Newcombe & Pettit, Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiffs.


    Court: District Court for the Central District of California Docket: CV02-06942MMMCWX
  2. Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Buttes Gas & Oil Co. (1971)

    Philip F. Westbrook, Jr. and Donald M. Wessling, O'Melveny & Myers, Arthur Groman, Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp, Los Angeles, Cal., Louis Nizer, Simon Rose and David G. Miller, Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon, New York City, for plaintiffs.


    Court: District Court for the Central District of California Docket: Civ. No. 70-1397-HP
  3. Bureerong v. Uvawas (1996)

    Stewart Kwoh, Julie A. Su, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Los Angeles, CA, Della Bahan, Glenn Rothner, Anthony R. Segall, Rothner, Segall, Bahan & Greenstone, Pasadena, CA, Dan Stormer, Hadsell & Stormer, Inc., Pasadena, CA, Lora Jo Foo, Laura Ho, Asian Law Caucus, San Francisco, CA, Lucas Guttentag, ACLU Immigrants Rights Project, San Francisco, CA, Mark Rosenbaum, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.


    Court: District Court for the Central District of California Docket: CV95-5958 ABC (BQRx)
  4. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc. (2002)

    Jeffrey N. Mausner, Laurence M. Berman, Berman, Mausner & Resser, Ronald L. Johnston, John J. Quinn, Sean Morris, Daniel J. Cooper, Arnold & Porter, Los Angeles, CA, for Perfect 10, Inc.


    Court: District Court for the Central District of California Docket: CV 01-2595LGB(SHX)
  5. Sarei v. Rio Tinto PLC. (2002)

    Steve W. Berman, Jeffrey T. Sprung, Hagens & Berman, Seattle, WA, Brent R. Walton, Hagens & Berman, Los Angeles, CA, Paul Luvera, Joel D. Cunningham, Luvera Barnett Brindley, Beninger & Cunningham, Seatle, WA, Kevin P. Roddy, Hagens & Berman, Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff.


    Court: District Court for the Central District of California Docket: CIV.00-11695 MMM
  6. Tudyman v. United Airlines (1984)

    Defendant's motion for summary judgment came on for hearing during normal motion calendar October 22, 1984. This Court, having considered the memorandum and declarations filed by both parties, the oral argument, and the file in this matter, grants defendant's motion. This decision is based on undisputed facts viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.


    Court: District Court for the Central District of California Docket: CV 84-4463-ER
  7. United States v. Hill (2004)

    Defendant has been indicted on one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). He brings a series of pre-trial motions, raising the following issues: What must an affidavit allege to establish probable cause that images on a defendant's computer are child pornography? Is a warrant overbroad if it permits seizure of computer media without requiring that they be inspected at the scene? If it doesn't define the search methodology? Finally, are defense [...]

    Court: District Court for the Central District of California Docket: CR 02-01289 AK
  8. Meta-Film Associates, Inc. v. MCA, Inc. (1984)

    Louis P. Petrich, Youngman, Hungate & Leopold, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants MCA, Universal, ABC, Simmons, Reitman, Ramis, Miller & Stumpf as Executor of the Estate of Douglas Kenney.


    Court: District Court for the Central District of California Docket: CV 79-1272 MRP, CV 79-3811 MRP
  9. In Re Equity Funding Corp. of Amer. SEC. Litigation (1976)

    Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, Cal., for United California Bank, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., Pennsylvania Life Co., Pennsylvania Life Insurance Co., and Penn General Agencies, Inc.


    Court: District Court for the Central District of California Docket: M.D.L. No. 142
  10. United States v. Real Property at 6625 Zumirez Drive (1994)

    This is an in rem civil forfeiture action brought by plaintiff United States of America (the "government") pursuant to the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, § 306(a), 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7), and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA"), § 963(a), 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C). Claimant Gene Craig Wall ("Wall") argues that in this case forfeiture under either statute would violate the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause.


    Court: District Court for the Central District of California Docket: CV 91-4531 MRP
  11. Cottonwood Christian Center v. Cypress Redev. Ag. (2002)

    Sean P. O'Connor, Andrew J. Guilford, Jeffrey Michael Blank, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, Costa Mesa, CA, Kevin J. Hasson, Roman Storzer, Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., Washington, DC, for plaintiff.


    Court: District Court for the Central District of California Docket: SA CV 02-60 DOC (ANx)
  12. United States v. DeMarco (1975)

    On April 4, 1974, Attorney General William Saxbe directed the Watergate Special Prosecution Force "to investigate and prosecute all violations of law arising out of the preparation of President Nixon's 1969 income tax return and the deductions in subsequent years for the gift of pre-Presidential papers to the National Archives ...."


    Court: District Court for the Central District of California Docket: CR 75-1188-F
  13. Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc. (2001)

    Terence J. Clark, Irene Y. Lee, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Los Angeles, CA, Stephen Contoplulos, Bradley Ellis, Frank J. Broccolo, Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, Los Angeles, CA, Louis Petrich, Howard Wien, Leopold, Petrich & Smith, Los Angeles, CA for Defendants.


    Court: District Court for the Central District of California Docket: CV0010316ABC (RNBX)
  14. Anunziato v. eMachines, Inc. (2005)

    James E. Miller, Shepherd Finkelman Miller and Shah, Patrick A. Klingman, Chester, CT, James C. Shah, Nathan Zipperian, Shepherd Finkelman Miller and Shah, Media, PA, Thomas D. Mauriello, Thomas D Mauriello Law Offices, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs.


    Court: District Court for the Central District of California Docket: SACV05-610JVSMLGX
  15. United States v. Davis (1989)

    Greg Davis and David Chesnoff, Las Vegas, Nev., Alfredo Chavaria-Castaneda and Jeffrey Pope, West Covina, Cal., Robert Acevedes-Ramirez and Jerry Scotti, Beverly Hills, Cal., and Moises Negron, Jr. and Byron C. Thompson, Oakland, Cal., for defendants.


    Court: District Court for the Central District of California Docket: CR 88-36(a) JSL
  16. Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc. (1997)

    The motion by defendant Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI") for summary judgment came before the Court on October 6, 1997. After reviewing and considering the materials submitted by the parties and hearing oral argument, the Court grants the motion in its entirety.


    Court: District Court for the Central District of California Docket: CV 96-7438 DDP (ANX)
  17. Isuzu Motors Ltd. v. Consumers Union of US, Inc. (1998)

    Christopher C. Spencer, Robert M. Buell, McGuire Woods Battle & Boothe, Richmond, VA, Mark V. Berry, Bowman & Brooke, Torrance, CA, Jonathan W. Lubell, Frank McClain-Sewer, Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein, New York City, Andrew M. White, Melvin N.A. Avanzado, White O'Connor Curry Gatti & Avanzado, Los Angeles, CA, Richard A. Bowman, Bowman & Brooke, Minneapolis, MN, for plaintiffs.


    Court: District Court for the Central District of California Docket: CV 97-5686 RAP RNBX
  18. Eversole v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Inc. (1980)

    On June 11, 1980, plaintiff Ann Eversole filed this civil action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. The named defendants are Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("Metropolitan") which issued a group insurance policy covering plaintiff to her employer, Litton Industries, Inc. and the Metropolitan employee who apparently was responsible for the denial of plaintiff's claim for medical benefits. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages based [...]

    Court: District Court for the Central District of California Docket: CV 80-3269 MRP
  19. Summit Technology v. High-Line Medical Instruments (1996)

    Defendants' motions to dismiss came on regularly for hearing before this Court on February 5, 1996. After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties, argument of counsel, and the case file, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' motions are GRANTED.


    Court: District Court for the Central District of California Docket: CV95-6491 ABC (SHx)
  20. Masuda v. Thomas Richards & Co. (1991)

    William K. Masuda filed this action against Thomas Richards & Company ("TRC"), alleging inter alia violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA" or the "Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692o (1988).[1] Plaintiff Masuda, a debtor, contends that TRC, a debt collection agency, transgressed numerous provisions of the federal debtor protection statute in telephone calls and dunning letters to him. Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment as to the alleged violations.

    Court: District Court for the Central District of California Docket: CV 89-6866 MRP

1 of 163 Page(s)

Page:
  1. 2
  2. 3
  3. 4
  4. 5