Red Alarm, Inc. v. Waycrosse, Inc.

Good Law
47 F.3d 999·95 Daily Journal DAR 1747·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2244·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 951
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 7, 199593-16087California2,269 words

Opinion

Opinion

47 F.3d 999 RED ALARM, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAYCROSSE, INC., a Delaware corporation, doing business as Silent Knight Security Systems; Silent Knight Security Systems of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota corporation; Does One through Ten, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-16087. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Dec. 13, 1994. Decided Feb. 7, 1995. Ronald A. Rubenstein, Whiting, Rubenstein & Levy, Richmond, CA, for plaintiff-appellant. Andre J. Cronthall, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Los Angeles, CA, and Jane L. Thomas, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, San Francisco, CA, for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before: HUG, CANBY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. HUG, Circuit Judge: 1 The issue in this case is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment against Red Alarm on its claim that a "settlement check" sent to Silent Knight constituted an accord and satisfaction between the parties. We agree with the district court and affirm. FACTS 2 Silent Knight manufactures security alarm equipment. Red Alarm…

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.