§Why CasetextPricing

NXP B.V. v. Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al

RESPONSE to 37 MOTION to Extend Time

10 Cited authorities

  1. Boschetto v. Hansing

    539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,239 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the lone transaction for the sale of one item" did not create personal jurisdiction over the defendants in California because there were no allegations that the seller was a regular user of eBay to sell cars or "as a broader vehicle for commercial activity"

  2. Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assoc., Inc.

    557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977)   Cited 1,728 times
    Holding that a court "may not assume the truth of allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by affidavit"

  3. Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp.

    805 F.2d 1323 (8th Cir. 1986)   Cited 731 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an attempt to depose an attorney about documents her client possessed was protected by the work product privilege, as this knowledge would reflect her judgment as an attorney in identifying, examining, and selecting from her client's voluminous files those documents on which she relied in preparing her client's defense

  4. Terracom v. Valley Nat. Bank

    49 F.3d 555 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 412 times
    Holding that the defendant must have actually known that its product would reach the forum state before the "stream of commerce" theory will support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant

  5. Butcher’s Union Local No. 498 v. SDC Inv., Inc.

    788 F.2d 535 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 436 times
    Holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing jurisdictional discovery where the plaintiffs "state only that they `believe' discovery will enable them to demonstrate sufficient California business contacts to establish the court's personal jurisdiction"

  6. Pfister v. Selling Source, LLC

    931 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (D. Nev. 2013)   Cited 18 times
    Transferring case rather than dismissing it when the transfer would "lead to a more just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution for all parties"

  7. Couturier v. Am. Invsco Corp.

    Case No. 2:12-cv-01111-APG-NJK (D. Nev. Aug. 19, 2013)   Cited 17 times

    Case No. 2:12-cv-01104-APG-NJK Case No. 2:12-cv-01106-APG-NJK Case No. 2:12-cv-01107-APG-NJK Case No. 2:12-cv-01108-APG-NJK Case No. 2:12-cv-01110-APG-NJK Case No. 2:12-cv-01111-APG-NJK 08-19-2013 BRUCE COUTURIER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN INVSCO CORP., et al., Defendants. NANCY J. KOPPE ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Michael Mackenzie Should Not Be Held In Contempt of Court. Docket No. 89, 2:12-cv-01104-APG-NJK; Docket No.

  8. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Heraeus Holding GmbH

    Civ. Action No. 11-773-SLR-CJB (D. Del. Sep. 28, 2012)   Cited 16 times
    Finding that allegation that accused method is used by defendant's customers sufficient to allow an inference that at least one direct infringer exists

  9. Grasshopper House v. Accelerated Recovery Centers

    Civil No. 09-778-HA (D. Or. Oct. 15, 2009)

    Civil No. 09-778-HA. October 15, 2009 OPINION AND ORDER ANCER HAGGERTY, District Judge Plaintiffs Grasshopper House, LLC and Passages Silver Strand, LLC allege that defendants used their trademarks and trade dress in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 and that defendants' acts constitute unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices pursuant to California Business Professions Code § 17200. As a result of these actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants have been

  10. Section 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 29,059 times   191 Legal Analyses
    Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR