Search for: "Sprint Spectrum, LP"
Results 1 - 10 of 10
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
23 Feb 6:00 am
On February 17, 2009, a petition for rehearing was filed in the Supreme Court CLRA case, Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum, no. S153846. The
opinion is available here: Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., ___ Cal.4th ___, 2009 WL 197560 (Jan. 29, 2009). See these blog posts for
more. Thanks to a loyal blog reader, here are copies of the petition for rehearing and an amicus letter filed by eight consumer advocacy ...
2 Apr 2:41 pm
Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied the petition for rehearing in Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum, no. S153846.
30 Jan 6:01 am
Today's Recorder reports that "CLRA Suits Require Actual Injury" (subscription). The article begins: More than four years ago, California voters passed Proposition 64, limiting suits
filed under the state's unfair competition law to individuals actually injured by someone else's illegal acts. On Thursday, the California Supreme Court took a similar step by
restricting suits filed under the state's Consumer Legal Remedies Act to plaintiffs who have suffered real damage because of an allegedly ...
24 Nov 5:00 am
... the intermediate appellate panel for further proceedings, as in McAdams and Pfizer (Galfano), the Court simply dismissed review. The dismissal order reads: In light of the decision
in In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298 and Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum LP (2009) 24
Cal.4th 634, review in the above-entitled matter is dismissed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.528(b)(1).) (Hyperlink added.) ...
6 Mar 8:04 am
... 's Kagan analysis is clarified by Proposition 64 spill-over. Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum LP,
___ Cal. __, 2009 WL197560 (January 29, 2009). In Meyer, the ... day limitation period for initiating billing disputes. Plaintiffs did not allege, however, that Sprint had asserted or threatened to assert these terms against them. In the wake of the passage of ... to amend. The Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate
District affirmed. See Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 150 Cal. App. 4th 1136 (2007). The California ...
4 Jun 6:00 am
... Justice George in connection with his estate planning, which is why he was recused from hearing the case. Justice Eileen Moore of the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, sat
in his stead. A rehearing petition was also filed, and denied, recently in Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum, no. S153846. In that case, the
Supreme Court granted itself an extension of time before denying the petition.
1 Aug, 2007 6:00 am
... governing the claims differ. The article also discusses two of the most recent CLRA decisions, Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum
LP, 150 Cal.App.4th 1136 (2007) and McAdams v. Monier, Inc., 151 Cal.App. ... been filed in both of these two recent cases. On June 26, 2007, a
review petition was filed in Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum (no. S153846), followed by an answer to the petition on July 16 and the reply last
Friday, July 27. On July 5, 2007, a petition for review was filed in McAdams v. Monier (no. S154088), ...
2 Feb 9:20 pm
... the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The ruling came in a case named Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum LP. What does this mean for San Diegans? It means that even if it is all but certain that you will lose money or suffer some other type of injury from a
business's conduct, you ... suffer the injury, then you can sue. In the case, consumers brought suit against Sprint to prevent Sprint from charging them early termination fees and to change the arbitration provisions contained in the ...
11 Jul, 2008 1:00 pm
... in O'Brien v. Camisasca Automotive Mfg., no. S163207. The order reads: Petition for Review GRANTED. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition
of related issues in In re Tobacco II Cases, S147345, and Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum, LP,
S153846 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court. Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to ...
2 Mar 10:24 am
This morning's Daily Journal has an interesting article on the oral arguments this week in Tobacco and Fairbanks. The article tells us why Chief Justice George will not hear Tobacco:
And while Chief Justice Ronald M. George is usually the swing vote in such close cases and a fair indicator of which way the decision will turn, he'll be sitting out Tuesday's oral
argument and the decision because one of the defense firms in the case, Loeb & Loeb in Los Angeles, handles his estate planning. ...
Search on: Blawgs.FM | BlawgSearch Google Co-op | Blawg.com | Bloglines | Feedster | Google Blog Search | Technorati | Google | MSN | Yahoo!