Cases

Opinion AARON, J. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Tiffany Brinkley appeals from an order of the trial court compelling her to arbitrate her individual claims and dismissing her class claims. Brinkley filed a putative class action against defendant Monterey Financial Services, Inc. (Monterey), asserting statutory vi

OPINION M. SMITH, Circuit Judge: Monterey Financial Services, Inc. and Monterey Financial Services, LLC (collectively, Monterey) appeal the district court’s grant of Tiffany Brinkley’s (Brinkley) motion to remand this class action to California state court. We conclude that Brinkley did not meet the requirements of

AARON, J. *321I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Tiffany Brinkley appeals from an order of the trial court compelling her to arbitrate her individual claims and dismissing her class claims. Brinkley filed a putative class action against defendant Monterey Financial Services, Inc. (Monterey), asserting statutory violation

Hon. William Q. Hayes, United States District Judge The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 100) filed by Defendant Monterey Financial Services, LLC. I. Background On October 15, 2013, Plaintiff Tiffany Brinkley initiated this action by filing a Complaint (ECF No. 1-3) against Monterey Financial Services, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California in

Filed 7/20/23 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DALIA ROJAS, D077931 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 37-2014-00023795- v. CU-MC-NC) HSBC CARD SERVICES INC. et al., Defendants and

Filed 10/6/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT CARLOS VILLALOBOS, B333556 Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. 22STCV21353 v. and 22STCV33047 MAERSK, INC. et al., Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL fro

Filed 12/20/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO JEREMIAH SMITH, Plaintiff and Appellant, E069752 v. (Super.Ct.No. RIC1612501) LOANME, INC., OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

Filed 6/26/24 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE DOMINIQUE KEETON, Plaintiff and Respondent, A166690 v. TESLA, INC., (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG21109088) Defendant and Appellant.

TERRENCE W. BOYLE, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This cause comes before the Court following remand by the court of appeals. The sole issue to be decided on remand is whether plaintiffs have, after being permitted a period within which to engage in limited discovery, satisfied their burden to demonstrate that all of the defendants are alter egos of one another or are otherwise bound by the Franklin Manor forum-selection clause.

Klatt, Judge. {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, James M. Ryan, and third party defendant-appellant, Carolyn P. Ryan, appeal multiple decisions of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part. {¶ 2} On August 10, 2005, plaintiff-appellee, Ford Motor Credit Company (“Ford”), brought a breach-of-contract action against James and Ryan and Ryan, Inc. (“RRI”

DENNIS, Justice. This appeal is yet another repercussion of the national gas shortage. The issue presented is whether the Louisiana Public Service Commission (Commission) properly reduced rates within its jurisdiction charged to several municipalities by a gas pipeline company for the purpose of removing prejudicial effects caused by the company’s sale of gas to industries at prices below cost under long term contracts, wh