Remington Investments, Inc. v. Kadenacy

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to impose sanctions where the 9 motion involved an issue unsettled by the Ninth Circuit because “a legal claim for which no 10 mandatory authority exists does not present good grounds for sanctions”
• considering question under California law in light of O'Melvenv & Mvers
• “[A] legal claim for which no mandatory authority exists does not present good grounds for sanctions because the law of the jurisdiction is unsettled.”
• “[A] legal claim for which no mandatory authority exists does not present good grounds for sanctions because the law of the jurisdiction is unsettled.”
• applied O’Melveny and state law, and concluded the California Court of Appeal had ruled FDIC’s assignees were entitled to the benefit of the federal statute of limitations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).