Gilliam

MONEX DEPOSIT CO. v. Gilliam

Good Law
680 F. Supp. 2d 1148·2010 WL 325570
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJanuary 25, 2010Case SACV 09-287 JVS (RNBx)California8,142 words

Opinion

Opinion

Selna, J.

AMENDED ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Plaintiffs Monex Deposit Company and Monex Credit Company (collectively, “Monex”) move for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on its attempted extortion and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claims. Defendants Richard Gilliam and Jason Gilliam (collectively, “the Gilliams”), who are proceeding pro se, oppose the motion. Jason Gilliam moves for summary judgment on Monex’s cyberpiracy, trade secret misappropriation, and attempted extortion claims. Richard Gilliam moves for summary judgment on Monex’s defamation, trade libel, interference with contract, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, civil racketeering, unfair business practices, and unfair competition claims.

I. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate only where the record, read in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, indicates that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”…

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.