Pedrina v. Chun

Good Law
96 Daily Journal DAR 12417·97 F.3d 1296·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 26463·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7558
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 10, 199695-16477California3,594 words

Opinion

Opinion

97 F.3d 1296 RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 9137 , 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7558 , 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12 ,417 Raymond PEDRINA, Luz Pedrina, Jupiterrex Uraniumrhi and Rosita Uraniumrhi, Plaintiffs, Leonard Wong and Cheryl Wong; Isidro Dilay; Margaret S. Dilay; Lorraine Dilay; Nicanor Amit; Alejandro Coloyan and Ofelia Coloyan; Raphael Kamai and Lynda Augustus; Alfredo Aurio, Sr. and Benita Aurio; Jennie Olinger; James Jones and Loretta Jones; Sebastian Igarta and Estrella Igarta; Wilfredo M. Bolo and Josefina V. Bolo; Cristita Bolo; Francisco Pedrina and Adoracion Pedrina; Frances C. Miguel; William Sullivan and Jocelyn Sullivan; Violeta Dumadag; John Batalona; Cipriano Manuel; Severo Duque; Milnor Lum; Peter Barcia and Julie Barcia, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Han Kuk CHUN; Tetsuo Yasuda; Y.Y. Valley Corporation, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, and Masanori Kobayashi; Yoshinori "Ken" Hayashida; City and County of Honolulu and Mayor Frank F. Fasi; Robert Carter; Eugene Lum and Norma Lum; Ernest Souza; Hiroshi Kobayashi, Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 95-16477, 95-16782. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 7, 1996. Decided Oct. 10, 1996.…

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.