§Why CasetextPricing

Celena King vs. Great American Chicken Corp., Inc et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12

30 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 251,282 times   279 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 265,266 times   364 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

  3. Moss v. U.S. Secret Service

    572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 8,703 times
    Holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over the district court's deferral of the summary judgment motion

  4. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept

    901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988)   Cited 15,926 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a cognizable gender discrimination claim could be brought by a female domestic violence victim where the victim alleged police denied protection and made misogynistic comments including that "he did not blame [the victim's] husband for hitting her, because of the way she was 'carrying on'"

  5. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare

    534 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,420 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that this court may affirm on the basis of any ground fairly supported by the record

  6. Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island Inc.

    711 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013)   Cited 950 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an agency relationship requires pleading of facts showing that agent "had apparent or actual authority to bind" principal, and mere conclusory statements of agency status are insufficient to state a claim

  7. Western Min. Council v. Watt

    643 F.2d 618 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 2,851 times
    Holding the Court should not "assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations"

  8. Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.

    53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 799 times   82 Legal Analyses
    Holding the employer is required to provide a meal period to employees, but "is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure no work thereafter is performed"

  9. Nakahata v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Healthcare Sys., Inc.

    723 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2013)   Cited 591 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[a]llegations of fraud are subject to a heightened pleading standard"

  10. IN RE STAC ELECTRONICS SECURITIES LITIGATION

    89 F.3d 1399 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 796 times
    Holding securities section 11 claims sounding in fraud are subject to Rule 9(b) particularity requirements

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 344,310 times   920 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 90,116 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

  13. Section 226.7 - [Effective until 1/1/2027] Work during meal, rest, or recovery period

    Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7   Cited 293 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Stating that employers are required to "provide an employee a meal or rest or recovery period in accordance with a state law"