48 Cited authorities

In re Phenylpropanolamine
460 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 4,627 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[f]ailing to produce documents" and "unreasonable delay" both support the court's finding of prejudice
Coopers Lybrand v. Livesay
437 U.S. 463 (1978) Cited 2,829 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court's "discretionary" determination that a suit may not proceed as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 was not a "final decision" appealable under § 1291
Pagtalunan v. Galaza
291 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 4,582 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, on a 41(b) motion, it is within the district court's discretion to decide whether to dismiss when the balance is close
Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
464 U.S. 417 (1984) Cited 980 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding identical copying of videotapes under unique circumstances of case “[did] not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use”
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
510 U.S. 569 (1994) Cited 642 times 71 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[i]t was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of [a secondary work] rendered it presumptively unfair”
A M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 745 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that Napster could not invoke § 1008 as a defense to copyright infringement claims because its technology did not fit within the AHRA’s definitions
Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Co.
415 U.S. 1 (1974) Cited 403 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the enumeration of specific types of equitable authority in the Freedom of Information Act did not preclude district courts from granting non-enumerated injunctive relief
Los Angeles Mem. Coliseum v. Nat. Football
634 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1980) Cited 827 times
Holding that injury of lost revenues was not irreparable
Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Pub. Co.
762 F.2d 1374 (9th Cir. 1985) Cited 651 times
Finding no irreparable harm based on "loss of reputation, competitiveness, and goodwill" where plaintiff provided "only two affidavits" which "did not address the particular situation in issue" and "provided only conclusory statements"
James v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc.
283 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 327 times
Holding that, "when a party that has suffered an adverse partial judgment subsequently dismisses remaining claims without prejudice with the approval of the district court, and the record reveals no evidence of intent to manipulate our appellate jurisdiction, the judgment entered after the district court grants the motion to dismiss is final and appealable"
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
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"
Section 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online
17 U.S.C. § 512 Cited 588 times 187 Legal Analyses
Denying the safe harbor if the service provider receives "a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity"

Lenz v. Universal Music Group Inc. et al

48 Cited authorities

Holding that "[f]ailing to produce documents" and "unreasonable delay" both support the court's finding of prejudice

Holding that a district court's "discretionary" determination that a suit may not proceed as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 was not a "final decision" appealable under § 1291

Holding that, on a 41(b) motion, it is within the district court's discretion to decide whether to dismiss when the balance is close

Holding identical copying of videotapes under unique circumstances of case “[did] not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use”

Holding that “[i]t was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of [a secondary work] rendered it presumptively unfair”

Holding that Napster could not invoke § 1008 as a defense to copyright infringement claims because its technology did not fit within the AHRA’s definitions

Holding that the enumeration of specific types of equitable authority in the Freedom of Information Act did not preclude district courts from granting non-enumerated injunctive relief

Holding that injury of lost revenues was not irreparable

Finding no irreparable harm based on "loss of reputation, competitiveness, and goodwill" where plaintiff provided "only two affidavits" which "did not address the particular situation in issue" and "provided only conclusory statements"

Granting appellate jurisdiction over certain types of interlocutory orders

Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

Denying the safe harbor if the service provider receives "a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity"