§Why CasetextPricing

Hu v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc et al

Reply to Opposition re MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Judgment on the Pleadings

23 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 216,195 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. Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.

    552 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 1,316 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[m]ere conclusory allegations" about the resignations of company executives did not, without more, give rise to a strong inference of scienter

  3. Tatum v. City and County of San Francisco

    441 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 1,133 times
    Holding that "a police officer who promptly summons the necessary medical assistance has acted reasonably for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, even if the officer did not administer CPR"

  4. State of California v. Campbell

    138 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 949 times
    Holding that party seeking a continuance must make clear what information is sought and how it would preclude summary judgment

  5. In re Westinghouse Securities Litigation

    90 F.3d 696 (3d Cir. 1996)   Cited 957 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed complaint with prejudice following plaintiff's decision not to amend

  6. Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp.

    103 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 759 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that comments such as "old timers" and "we don't necessarily like grey hair" do not necessarily defeat summary judgment in age-discrimination cases

  7. Provenz v. Miller

    102 F.3d 1478 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 698 times
    Holding district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to file surreply because the court did not consider new evidence included in reply brief

  8. Family Home v. Federal

    525 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 459 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California's common interest privilege applies to disclosure of names on Exclusionary List

  9. Heliotrope General, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.

    189 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 359 times
    Holding where allegedly omitted information was part of the "total mix of information" available, plaintiff could not state a claim under § 10b

  10. Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc.

    242 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 328 times
    Holding witness's testimony that he "could not recall" event insufficient to create triable issue

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,543 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 6   Cited 48,300 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

  13. Section 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

    28 U.S.C. § 1746   Cited 10,022 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the use of declarations instead