context: The district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the parties to file additional motions for summary judgment after the applicable law changed.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 124 F.3d 1103, 1105-06
citation_a.parenthetical: rejecting contention that successive motions for summary judgment were impermissible
citation_a.sentence: See Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir.2002) (“The district court has considerable latitude in managing the parties’ motion practice[.]”); see also Knox v. Sw. Airlines, 124 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir.1997) (rejecting contention that successive motions for summary judgment were impermissible).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 286 F.3d 1118, 1129
citation_b.parenthetical: "The district court has considerable latitude in managing the parties' motion practice[.]"
citation_b.sentence: See Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir.2002) (“The district court has considerable latitude in managing the parties’ motion practice[.]”); see also Knox v. Sw. Airlines, 124 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir.1997) (rejecting contention that successive motions for summary judgment were impermissible).