Dang
Dang v. Pontier
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSEPH DANG d/b/a LAW OFFICE OF Case No.: 19CV1519-GPC(AHG) JOSEPH DANG, an individual,
ORDER GRANTING
Plaintiff, COUNTERDEFENDANT DANG’S v. MOTION TO ENJOIN FURTHER
PROSECUTION OF LATER FILED
DAVID PONTIER, an individual; SUIT TEOCO Corporation Group Benefit Plan, [Dkt. No. 133.] a self-funded group health plan; TEOCO Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; 17 UMR Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Glenn C. Nusbaum, an individual; Paul E. Kim, MD Inc., A California corporation; Kevin 19 Yoo, an individual, 20 Defendants.
22 Before the Court is Counterdefendant Dang’s motion to enjoin further prosecution 23 of a later filed suit in the District of Nevada. (Dkt. No. 133.) Pontier filed an opposition. 24 (Dkt. No. 144.) No reply was filed. Based on the reasoning below, the Court GRANTS 25 Dang’s motion to enjoin the action in the District of Nevada. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 Procedural Background …