Darty v. Grauman

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that § 1500 is not implicated when a plaintiffs claims are based on different operative facts or seeking different remedies
• commenting that the “claims in this court contain material factual allegations that are in direct opposition with the claims ... made in the district court”
• describing § 1500 as offering “a significant trap for the unwary ... [which] could entirely bar a cause of action from being heard”
• noting that the two suits “involved different conduct”
• “[I]f a material factual difference exists between two claims, they are not the same for the purposes of Section 1500”
• “In short, plaintiffs’ now-dismissed [false designation of origin] claim involved different conduct and was therefore not the ‘same claim’ as their copyright infringement claim . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).