Sullivan

Sullivan v. Safeway

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 8, 20193:19-cv-03187California417 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

facts to support a finding that any such other defendant is either incorporated, 20 headquartered, or otherwise “at home” in California, see Goodyear Dunlop Tires 21

22 1 By order filed earlier this date, the Court took the matter under submission. As set forth in said order, no opposition has been filed. On October 14, 2019, the date on 23 which any opposition was due, plaintiffs filed an administrative motion for extension of time to file their opposition. On October 18, 2019, the motion was denied (see Doc. No. 24 40), after which plaintiffs filed a “Supplemental Declaration,” attaching thereto a proposal for a stipulation of dismissal, to which defendants have replied. 25 2 The defendants in the above-titled action are Safeway Inc.; Albertsons 26 Companies, Inc.; Albertson’s LLC; New Albertsons L.P., as successor in interest to New Albertson’s, Inc.; Albertsons Companies, Inc., as defendant and as successor in interest 27 to Albertson’s Holdings LLC; Albertson’s Stores Sub Holdings LLC; AB Acquisition LLC; 1 Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011), or, alternatively, that the instant 2 action “arise[s] out of” any such defendant’s “contacts with [said]…

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.