Transue v. Aesthettech Corp

Good Law
2003 Daily Journal DAR 9754·341 F.3d 911·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7793·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 17909
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 27, 200301-35733California5,019 words

Opinion

Opinion

341 F.3d 911 Lana Glenell TRANSUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AESTHETECH CORP, Defendant, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, a Delaware corp; Medical Engineering, a Delaware corp, Surgitek, MEC Subsidiary Corp, a Wisconsin corp individually and as successor in interest to Surgitek Inc dba Surgitak, Mec Subsidiary Corp, Defendants-Appellees. No. 01-35733. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 10, 2003 — Seattle, Washington. Filed August 27, 2003. 1 Don Howarth, Los Angeles, California, for plaintiff-appellant and cross-appellee. 2 Suzelle M. Smith, Los Angeles, California, for plaintiff-appellant and cross-appellee. 3 Frederick D. Baker, San Francisco, California, for defendants-appellees and cross-appellants. 4 Michael F. Healy, San Francisco, California, for defendants-appellees and cross-appellants. 5 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV 94-1746L (RSL). 6 Before: DOROTHY W. NELSON and SIDNEY R. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, DEAN D. PREGERSON, * District Judge. OPINION 7 D. PREGERSON, District Judge. 8 Plaintiff-Appellant Lana Transue…

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.