Richards
Richards v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALBERT RICHARDS, Case No. 23-cv-00145-HSG
8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 126 10 CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, INC., et al., 11 Defendants.
12 13 Pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants 14 Centripetal Networks LLC, Steven Rogers, and Jonathan Rogers. Dkt. No. 126. The Court finds 15 these matters appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matters are deemed 16 submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons detailed below, the Court DENIES the motion 17 for summary judgment. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 The parties are familiar with the facts of this case, and the Court includes them here only as 20 relevant to the pending motion. The following facts are based on the evidence viewed in the light 21 most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party.1 See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 22 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (on a motion for summary judgment, “[t]he evidence of the…