Medical Imaging Centers of America, Inc. v. Lichtenstein

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting argument that the automatic stay provision does not apply to injunction actions filed by corporations
• “Section 636(b)(1) 20 . . . has been interpreted to provide for de novo review by the district court on issues of 21 law.”
• “undue prejudice” 26 1Indeed, a finding of excusable neglect where counsel was simply ignorant of the 27 applicable rule runs the risk that the excusable neglect “‘exception [will] swallow the rule.’” 28 Townsel v. Contra Costa County, Cal., 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1987

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).