§Why CasetextPricing

Hoang et al v. Reunion.com Inc

Reply Memorandum re MOTION to Certify March 31, 2010 Order for Interlocutory Review re Order, MOTION to Certify March 31, 2010 Order for Interlocutory Review re Order

11 Cited authorities

  1. In re Cement Antitr. Litigation

    673 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 639 times
    Holding that interlocutory appeal is only justified under "exceptional circumstances."

  2. Gordon v. Virtumundo

    575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 229 times
    Holding that a plaintiff who merely provided e-mail accounts and hosted a website on leased server space did not have standing under CANSPAM

  3. United States Rubber Company v. Wright

    359 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1966)   Cited 241 times
    Holding that certification should be granted "only in extraordinary cases where decision of an interlocutory appeal might avoid protracted and expensive litigation."

  4. Milbert v. Bison Laboratories

    260 F.2d 431 (3d Cir. 1958)   Cited 225 times
    Holding that requirements of § 1292(b) are to be strictly construed

  5. Omega World Travel v. Mummagraphics

    469 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2006)   Cited 39 times
    Granting summary judgment on section 7704 claim because one violation did not demonstrate a pattern or practice

  6. APCC Servs., Inc. v. AT T Corp.

    297 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D.D.C. 2003)   Cited 27 times

    No. CIV.A. 99-0696 ESH December 17, 2003. C. Barry Montgomery, Edward R. Moor, Hall Adams, III, Williams, Montgomery John, Chicago, IL, Jeffrey John Ward, Sean Michael Hanifin, Ross, Dixon Bell, LLP, Washington, DC, Michael W. Ward, Buffalo Grove, IL, for Plaintiffs. Clifford J. Zatz, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer Feld, LLP, Washington, DC, Kathryn Elizabeth Thiel, ATT Telephone Telegraph Company, Oakton, VA, for Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION ELLEN S. HUVELLE, District Judge. Plaintiffs in this case

  7. Hightower v. Schwarzenegger

    1:04-cv-06028 OWW SMS (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    1:04-cv-06028 OWW SMS (PC). January 12, 2009 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S FIRST MOTION FOR SIXTY-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE MOTION TO DISMISS (DOCUMENT #84) SIXTY-DAY DEADLINE SANDRA SNYDER, Magistrate Judge On January 5, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to oppose defendants' motion to dismiss. Good cause having been presented to the court and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Plaintiff is granted sixty (60) days from the date of service of this order in which

  8. Section 1292 - Interlocutory decisions

    28 U.S.C. § 1292   Cited 22,559 times   198 Legal Analyses
    Granting appellate jurisdiction over certain types of interlocutory orders

  9. Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1   Cited 15,441 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

  10. Section 7706 - Enforcement generally

    15 U.S.C. § 7706   Cited 78 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Creating private right of action for providers of Internet access service

  11. Section 7707 - Effect on other laws

    15 U.S.C. § 7707   Cited 57 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Providing CAN-SPAM does not preempt state "trespass" laws