Search for: "Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC"
Results 1 - 17
of 17
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Oct 2018, 11:33 am
Crunch San Diego, LLC, No. 14-56834 (Sept. 20, 2018). [read post]
5 Oct 2018, 12:40 pm
Crunch San Diego LLC, the panel held that, in light of ACA Int’l, the U.S. [read post]
25 Oct 2018, 12:18 pm
Crunch San Diego, LLC, 2018 U.S. [read post]
3 Nov 2014, 1:50 pm
Crunch San Diego, LLC, -- F.Supp.3d --, 2014 WL 5422976 (S.D. [read post]
10 Feb 2020, 8:57 am
Crunch San Diego, LLC, 904 F.3d 1041, 1043 (9th Cir. 2018), with Dominguez v. [read post]
21 Feb 2020, 9:21 am
Crunch San Diego, LLC, 904 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2018). [read post]
3 Dec 2018, 10:45 am
Crunch San Diego, LLC, 904 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2018) (previously discussed here). [read post]
28 Jan 2020, 1:00 pm
Crunch San Diego, LLC, 904 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2018), which embraced a more expansive view of the ATDS definition. [read post]
10 Jul 2020, 8:49 am
Crunch San Diego, LLC, 904 F.3d 1041, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2018). [read post]
10 Jul 2020, 8:49 am
Crunch San Diego, LLC, 904 F.3d 1041, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2018). [read post]
25 Feb 2020, 2:41 pm
Crunch San Diego, LLC, 904 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. dismissed, 139 S. [read post]
9 Dec 2020, 5:58 pm
Crunch San Diego, LLC, 904 F.3d 1041, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2018). [read post]
9 Dec 2020, 5:58 pm
Crunch San Diego, LLC, 904 F.3d 1041, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2018). [read post]
16 May 2019, 1:41 pm
Crunch San Diego, LLC, 904 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2018)] as a device that stores numbers to be called, irrespective of whether they have been generated by a random or sequential number generator. [read post]
20 Nov 2018, 2:06 pm
After rejecting the Ninth Circuit’s September 2018 decision in Marks v. [read post]
7 Dec 2020, 1:57 pm
Crunch San Diego, LLC, the 9th Circuit concluded that, in the statutory definition of an ATDS, the adverbial phrase “using a random or sequential number generator” only modifies to “produce,” not “to store. [read post]
15 Dec 2020, 1:40 pm
Crunch San Diego LLC, 904 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2018), ruled consistent with the third interpretation that a system capable of sending text messages to a list of stored telephone numbers was an ATDS. [read post]