Narrative Opinion Summary
The court affirms the district court's decisions based on the reasoning provided in three specific orders: 1. The Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs and Defendant’s Motions for Summary Judgment, dated May 14, 2009. 2. The Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dated June 26, 2007. 3. The Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, dated May 12, 2006. The affirmation states that the disposition is not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent, except as stipulated by 9th Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Motion to Dismiss Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the district court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss, suggesting that the complaint contained sufficient facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face.
Reasoning: The court affirms the district court's decisions based on the reasoning provided in three specific orders: The Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, dated May 12, 2006.
Partial Summary Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the district court's decision to grant partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, indicating that there were undisputed facts that entitled the plaintiffs to judgment as a matter of law on specific issues.
Reasoning: The court affirms the district court's decisions based on the reasoning provided in three specific orders: The Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dated June 26, 2007.
Precedential Value of Unpublished Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's affirmation specifies that this disposition is not suitable for publication and cannot be used as precedent, except as allowed by specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The affirmation states that the disposition is not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent, except as stipulated by 9th Circuit Rule 36-3.
Summary Judgment Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated motions for summary judgment and made determinations on granting or denying them based on the merits presented in the case.
Reasoning: The court affirms the district court's decisions based on the reasoning provided in three specific orders: The Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs and Defendant’s Motions for Summary Judgment, dated May 14, 2009.