Roberts v. McAfee, Inc.

4 Citing briefs

  1. Harmoni International Spice, Inc. et al v. Wenxuan Bai et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike The Second through Sixth Claims of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 Amended Complaint/Petition 26 39

    Filed March 28, 2016

    This is a “low bar.” Roberts, 660 F.3d at 1163; Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894, 908 (9th Cir. 2010) (“required probability that [a party] will prevail need not be high.”).

  2. Siegal et al v. Gamble et al

    REPLY

    Filed March 10, 2015

    Dated: March 10, 2015 MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP By /s/ Kevin K. Eng Attorneys for Plaintiffs 5 State court decisions that are not selected for publication may be cited in federal courts. Edgerly v. City and County of San Francisco, 599 F.3d 946, 956 n.13 (9th Cir. 2010); Roberts v. McAfee, Inc., 660 F.3d 1156, 1167, n.6 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Granite State Ins. Co., 330 F.3d 1214, 1220 n. 8 (9th Cir.2003)). Case3:13-cv-03570-RS Document62 Filed03/10/15 Page20 of 20

  3. Green v. Cosby

    MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AS TO COUNT III

    Filed February 27, 2015

    Case 3:14-cv-30211-MGM Document 24 Filed 02/27/15 Page 13 of 38 11 7688352v.2 The policy reasons underlying the single publication rule are apparent: otherwise, an individual could be subjected to indefinite liability and the statute of limitations would provide no repose at all. See Roberts, 660 F.3d at 1167 (explaining that the problem with a theory extending the statute of limitations “is that it undermines the single-publication rule” which is “designed to provide repose to defendants by precluding stale claims based on dated but still-lingering mass communications”); see also Haberman v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 626 F. Supp. 201, 216 (D. Mass. 1986). The Washington Post’s reference to a statement that was made almost ten years earlier does not revive the statute of limitations.

  4. Manwin Licensing International S a r l et al v. ICM Registry LLC et al

    REPLY in support of MOTION to Strike Counterclaims Pursuant to California Code of Civil Proc. Sec. 425.16 76

    Filed January 28, 2013

    Under step 2, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the challenged claims.” Roberts v. McAfee, Inc., 660 F.3d 1156, 1163 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). That burden must be met through competent admissible evidence.