§Why CasetextPricing

San Francisco Technology, Inc. v. Aero Products International, Inc et al

Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss

11 Cited authorities

  1. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.

    501 U.S. 32 (1991)   Cited 9,431 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "may bar from the courtroom a criminal defendant who disrupts a trial" may "assess attorney fees when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons," and "may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute"

  2. In re Keegan Management, Securities Litigation

    78 F.3d 431 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 532 times
    Holding § 1927 sanctions "must be supported by a finding of subjective bad faith"

  3. Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.

    678 F.2d 93 (9th Cir. 1982)   Cited 605 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding dismissal is proper "when a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in another district"

  4. Barber v. Miller

    146 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 340 times
    Holding that "[a]n award of [Rule 11] sanctions cannot be upheld" where party seeking sanctions did not provide twenty-one day notice period

  5. Martell v. Trilogy Ltd.

    872 F.2d 322 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 126 times
    Holding a new claim added against a party already named as a defendant related back because the claims shared a common core of operative facts

  6. Open LCR.com, Inc. v. Rates Tech., Inc.

    112 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (D. Colo. 2000)   Cited 12 times
    Denying motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process because plaintiff's misidentification of defendant "was a mere technical error that resulted in no prejudice"

  7. Bulmash v. Davis

    24 Cal.3d 691 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 31 times
    In Bulmash v. Davis (1979) 24 Cal.3d 691, the Supreme Court stated: "[T]he effect of a vacating order is to eliminate the judgment.

  8. Schuch v. Northrup-Jones, Inc.

    162 Cal.App.2d 279 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)   Cited 8 times
    In Schuch v. Northrup-Jones, Inc., 162 Cal.App.2d 279, 285 [ 328 P.2d 279], the court said: "In determining when title to goods passes to the buyer the actual intention of the parties must govern where it can be ascertained, and no statutory presumption as to passing of title can arise except in those cases where the parties' intention is not manifest.

  9. Section 1927 - Counsel's liability for excessive costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1927   Cited 8,980 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts the power to charge "excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred" due to "unreasonabl[e] and vexatious" conduct

  10. Rule 3 - Commencing an Action

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 3   Cited 3,063 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Stating that once the inmate has filed his motion with the clerk, "[t]he clerk must file the motion and enter it on the criminal docket of the case in which the challenged judgment was entered"

  11. Section 292 - False marking

    35 U.S.C. § 292   Cited 567 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Providing cause of action and share of recovery against a person falsely marking patented articles