Indiezone, Inc. v. Joe Rogness

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 23, 202321-15344California517 words

Opinion

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

INDIEZONE, INC., No. 21-15344

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-04280-VC

CONOR FENNELLY; DOUGLAS

RICHARD DOLLINGER, MEMORANDUM*

Appellants,

and

EOBUY, LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOE ROGNESS; TODD ROOKE,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

PHIL HAZEL; et al.,

Defendants.

INDIEZONE, INC., No. 21-16338

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-04280-VC

CONOR FENNELLY; DOUGLAS

RICHARD DOLLINGER,

Appellants,

and

EOBUY, LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOE ROGNESS; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before: GRABER, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Appellants Indiezone, Inc., Conor Fennelly and Douglas Richard…

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.