Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Thus, California Code of Civil Procedure section 338(h), which specifies a three-year limitation, ordinarily should apply to section 17500. However, as section 17500 is cross referenced in section 17200, and as virtually all false advertising claims are litigated simultaneously with UCL claims, the limitations period for "false advertising ...
United States v. Google Inc., No. 3:12-cv-04177 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2012), is a case in which the United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved a stipulated order for a permanent injunction and a $22.5 million civil penalty judgment, the largest civil penalty the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has ever won in history. [1]
Rob Bonta, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, et al., Defendants : Citation: 19-cv-1537-BEN (JLB) Case history; Prior actions: Miller v. Bonta No. 19-cv-1537-BEN (JLB), injunction and stay, ECF No. 115 (S.D. Cal. 2021) Appealed from: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
The California Code of Civil Procedure (abbreviated to Code Civ. Proc. in the California Style Manual [a] or just CCP in treatises and other less formal contexts) is a California code enacted by the California State Legislature in March 1872 as the general codification of the law of civil procedure in the U.S. state of California, along with the three other original Codes.
(Reuters) -A U.S. appeals court on Friday left intact a key part of an injunction blocking a California law meant to shield children from online content that could harm them mentally or physically ...
DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Bunner was a lawsuit that was filed by the DVD Copy Control Association ("DVD CCA") in California, accusing Andrew Bunner and several others of misappropriation of trade secrets under California's implementation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
California cannot reject tenants’ applications for COVID-19 emergency rental assistance after a renter lawsuit raised questions about whether the state program meets constitutional standards.
The injunction was upheld on appeal in 1974. [3] A trial on the merits was delayed because of the implementation of the 1974 master plan, but the case eventually proceeded to trial in October 1977. [3] The final ruling was issued by United States District Court for the Northern District of California in 1979. [3]