19 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 215,238 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
  2. Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez

    577 U.S. 153 (2016)   Cited 1,202 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case" but noting that the Supreme Court had previously "simply assumed, without deciding, that an offer of complete relief pursuant to Rule 68, even if unaccepted, moots a plaintiff's claim" when a plaintiff did not challenge the lower court's finding on that point
  3. Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.

    514 U.S. 52 (1995)   Cited 1,237 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should be guided by the “cardinal principle of contract construction: that a document should be read to give effect to all of its provisions and to render them consistent with each other”
  4. Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs. LLC

    565 U.S. 368 (2012)   Cited 643 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "Congress did not deprive federal courts of federal-question jurisdiction over private TCPA suits"
  5. Satterfield v. Simon Schuster

    569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 417 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FCC's interpretation that a text message is a "call" under the TCPA is reasonable
  6. Miller v. U.S.

    363 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 115 times
    Holding IRS did not waive its right to collect a nondischargeable debt where Chapter 11 plan provisions did not explicitly state its intended effect.
  7. Pacific Bell v. Pac-West Telecomm, Inc.

    325 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 55 times
    Discussing the state public utilities commissions' powers under § 252 "to arbitrat[e], approv[e], and enfor[ce] interconnection agreements"
  8. Reardon v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

    115 F. Supp. 3d 1090 (N.D. Cal. 2015)   Cited 30 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that text messages sent by Uber to potential drivers are not advertisements sent with the purpose to promote a good or service
  9. Day v. at & T Disability Income Plan

    685 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 10 times

    No. 10–16479. 2012-07-3 David DAY, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. AT & T DISABILITY INCOME PLAN, Defendant–Appellee. Robert Nichols, San Jose, CA, for the appellant. Stephen H. Harris (argued), Caroline L. Elkin and Melinda A. Gordon, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky and Walker LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for the appellee. FISHER Robert Nichols, San Jose, CA, for the appellant. Stephen H. Harris (argued), Caroline L. Elkin and Melinda A. Gordon, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky and Walker LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for the appellee

  10. Headlands Reserve, LLC v. Center for Natural Lands Management

    523 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (C.D. Cal. 2007)   Cited 10 times
    Noting contracts should be interpreted so as to give effect to each part and not in a way that would render any part meaningless
  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 326,905 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
  12. Section 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

    28 U.S.C. § 1746   Cited 9,940 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the use of declarations instead
  13. Section 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment

    47 U.S.C. § 227   Cited 5,619 times   733 Legal Analyses
    Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals
  14. Section 1644 - Word understood in ordinary and popular sense

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1644   Cited 723 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that if parties give a term a special meaning, courts must follow the special meaning