Omar Portugués-Santana v. Rekomdiv International Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “the supposedly impeaching evidence that 24 counsel failed to uncover and present . . . either had no impeachment value or was 25 inculpatory”
• affirming dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) where complaint’s allegations failed to establish element necessary to make out plausible claim
• finding similar general instructions were sufficient to cure any possible adverse effects of allegedly improper statements made by plaintiff’s counsel
• “A motion for judgment on the pleadings is treated like a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss . . . .”
• “[I]mproper closing arguments are typically harmless if the judge provides a curative instruction that counsel’s argument is not evidence.”
• “to challenge a facially neutral government policy on the ground that 18 it has a disparate impact on people with disabilities, the policy must have the effect of denying 19 meaningful access to public services”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).