Haskell

Haskell v. Time, Inc.

Bad Law
965 F. Supp. 1398·1997 WL 258893·1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6916
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 14, 1997CIV-S-93-1165 DFL GGH, CIV-S-93-1166 DFL GGH, CIV-S-93-1167 DFL GGH, CIV-S-93-1313 DFL GGHCalifornia6,003 words

Opinion

Opinion

Levi, J.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Eben Haskell, on behalf of himself and the general public of California, seeks to enjoin various statements made by defendants in their magazine sweepstakes solicitations. The court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . All of plaintiffs claims rest upon state law.. Defendants move for summary judgment on all claims. I. Factual and Procedural Background

In an order filed June 13, 1994, the court dismissed without prejudice the major part of plaintiffs false and misleading advertising and unfair competition claims; dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs claims of violation of California’s contest and lottery statutes; and dismissed defendant Time Warner from the suit. Haskell v. Time, Inc., 857 F.Supp. 1392, 1405 (E.D.Cal.1994) (Haskell I.). Plaintiff then filed- amended complaints as to all remaining defendants. In the amended complaints, plaintiff again claims that defendants’ sweepstakes solicitations vi-date state laws prohibiting false and misleading advertising, that the operation of the sweepstakes constitute an unfair business practice, and that the sweepstakes are illegal lotteries.

In an order filed' Juné…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.