§Why CasetextPricing

Ramon Rivera v. Ronnie Carter et al

REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR AN ORDER AMENDING ORDER OF JULY 31, 2009 GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION for Order for Granting Defendants Motion for an Order Amending Order of July 31, 2009 Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction 42

9 Cited authorities

  1. School District No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc.

    5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 4,806 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "overwhelming weight of authority is that the failure to file documents in an original motion or opposition does not turn the late filed documents into 'newly discovered evidence'" for a motion for reconsideration

  2. Galindo v. Stoody Co.

    793 F.2d 1502 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 263 times
    Holding that numerous, direct references during trial raised issue

  3. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. v. Grunwald

    400 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 136 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a motion merely seeking to relitigate the issues underlying the original preliminary injunction order is subject to Rule 59(e)'s time limitation, "while a motion that in substance is based on new circumstances that have arisen after the district court grant the injunction may be filed at any time before entry of a final judgment"

  4. Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. v. Avis, Inc.

    316 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. 1963)   Cited 195 times
    Holding in preliminary injunction context that "it is not usually proper to grant the moving party the full relief to which he might be entitled if successful at the conclusion of a trial"

  5. U.S. v. Surgent

    04-CR-364 (JG) (SMG) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2009)   Cited 18 times
    Finding that a statute must authorize the form of forfeiture sought because Rule 32.2 only governs procedure

  6. Unites States v. Lazarenko

    575 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (N.D. Cal. 2008)   Cited 11 times
    Denying a third party petitioner's claim as to money in two bank accounts where no evidence was presented that the seized funds were the petitioner's

  7. Bobrick Corporation v. American Dispenser Co.

    377 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1967)   Cited 7 times

    No. 20101. April 14, 1967. Thomas P. Mahoney, Mahoney, Halbert Hornbaker, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Burgess, Ryan Hicks, S. Augustus Demma, John F. Ryan, New York City, Harris, Kiech, Russell Kern, Charles E. Wills, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before CHAMBERS and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, District Judge. CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge: Bobrick, a Delaware corporation, has a patent on soap dispensers. It says American, a New York corporation, and others in California are selling

  8. Section 982 - Criminal forfeiture

    18 U.S.C. § 982   Cited 2,180 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Allowing forfeiture as part of the court "imposing sentence on a person convicted of an offense"

  9. Section 1963 - Criminal penalties

    18 U.S.C. § 1963   Cited 1,324 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Permitting substitution where property forfeitable under § 1963 has been dissipated