Mendell v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the case law regarding equitable estoppel and equitable tolling is “confused and contradictory,” and that the district court “used the language of equitable estoppel” but applied the test “relevant to equitable tolling”
• explaining that 2 24-6030 civil RICO claims have a four-year statute of limitations that “begins to run when a plaintiff knows or should know of the injury which is the basis for the action”
• affirming the denial of Rule 56(d) and Rule 56(f) motions where the movant had adequate opportunity to conduct discovery but still could not produce summary judgment evidence to support its claims
• “This doctrine may be available when the defendant lulls the plaintiff into failing 6 to bring suit.”
• recovery of fees defending RICO claim authorized by agreement 22 shifting fees for disputes “in any . . . way pertaining to Partnership affairs or this Agreement”
• “Assignee shall reimburse Assignor upon demand for 9 any costs and expenses, including without limitation attorneys’ fees, for any efforts taken 10 by Assignor . . . to otherwise enforce Assignor’s rights hereunder.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).