From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Payne v. Anvil Knitwear Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 15, 2008
293 F. App'x 475 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

Nos. 07-56010, 07-56464.

Submitted September 8, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed September 15, 2008.

Lucretia M. Payne, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs-counter-defendants-Appellants.

James D. Weinberger, Esq., Fross, Zelnick, Lehrman Zissu, New York, NY, Christopher C. Larkin, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-08100-SVW.

Before: PREGERSON, McKEOWN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appellants' motion to correct typographical errors is granted. The Clerk shall file the amended response to the order to show cause received on July 21, 2008.

A review of the record and appellants' response to the order to show cause indicates that the questions raised in these appeals are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's August 15, 2007 judgment, all orders preceding the final judgment, and the August 29, 2007 order denying the motion to reopen the case.

All other pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Payne v. Anvil Knitwear Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 15, 2008
293 F. App'x 475 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Payne v. Anvil Knitwear Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Reva E. PAYNE; et al., Plaintiffs-counter-defendants-Appellants, v. ANVIL…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 15, 2008

Citations

293 F. App'x 475 (9th Cir. 2008)