Terrovona v. Kincheloe

3 Citing briefs

  1. Shipping And Transit, Llc v. Hall Enterprises, Inc.

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to FRCP 41

    Filed November 11, 2016

    The distinction between this case and Maxum is confirmed by the case on which Maxum relies, in which a magistrate judge issued his report and recommendation on the underlying claims before a motion for voluntary dismissal was filed. See Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1988). With no such circumstance present in this case, this court should not be persuaded that Plaintiff’s motion for dismissal must or should be denied based on a desire to avoid “a near-certain adverse ruling.”

  2. PEOPLE v. EDWARDS (ROBERT)

    Appellant’s Supplemental Opening Brief

    Filed September 14, 2010

    The admission of the evidence rendered appellant’s trial so fundamentally unfair as to violate his right to due process of law underthe Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62; Colley v. Sumner (9" Cir. 1986) 784 F.2d 984, 990; Terranova v. Kinchloe (9" Cir. 1988) 852 F.2d 424, 428-29: People v. Valentine (1986) 42 Cal.3d 170, 177. Thus, the error in admitting evidence of the Hawaii convictions requires reversal.

  3. Perrine v. Sega of America, Inc. et al

    REPLY

    Filed August 20, 2014

    Corp. v. Electrovert USA Corp., 122 F.R.D. 201, 203–204 (N.D. Tex. 1988) (“[O]utright dismissal should be refused . . . when a plaintiff seeks to circumvent an expected adverse result.” (emphasis added)); compare Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 428 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's request for dismissal without prejudice where magistrate judge had already issued report and recommendations on defendant's motion for summary judgment). Here, Gearbox cannot (and does not even try to) demonstrate that an adverse result is “expected,” especially since Case3:13-cv-01962-JD Document83 Filed08/20/14 Page8 of 13 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF CASE NO. 3:13-cv-01962-JD MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS AND WITHDRAW CLASS REPRESENTATIVE 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 discovery into the issues involved in its motion for partial summary judgment has only recently commenced.