NanoMech, Inc. v. Arunya Suresh

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming district court decision to dismiss claims without prejudice in the context of granting a Rule 12(c) motion
• “Under the plain language of the agreement, [defendant] would be prohibited from working for any company that is a competitor of [plaintiff], in any capacity, anywhere in the world.”
• “Although NanoMech is technically correct that Rule 12(c) requires all pleadings to be closed before a motion may be filed, NanoMech did not suffer any prejudice as a result of the district court’s decision [to address the otherwise untimely 12(c) motion].”
• “Although NanoMech is technically correct that Rule 12(c

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).