Aronson v. Dog Eat Dog Films, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “In addition to the common law cause of action, Washington has provided a statutory remedy for 22 misappropriation of identity under RCW 63.60.”
• “[T]he act underlying the plaintiff's cause, or the act which forms the basis for the plaintiff's cause of action, must itself have been an act in furtherance of the right of free speech.”
• “Neither the Local Civil Rules nor 2 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allow for a motion for reconsideration, is intended to 3 provide litigants with a second bite at the apple.”
• “Neither 3 the Local Civil Rules nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allow for a motion for 4 reconsideration, is intended to provide litigants with a second bite at the apple.”
• “Local Rule 7(h) is 16 the functional equivalent of a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)” 17 (citing Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991))
• citing“California law as persuasive authority for interpreting” RCW 4.24.525

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).