41 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 252,544 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 266,461 times   365 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. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA

    317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 4,198 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Rule 9(b) pleading standards apply to California CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims because, though fraud is not an essential element of those statutes, a plaintiff alleges a fraudulent course of conduct as the basis of those claims
  4. Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.

    567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 2,253 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity
  5. Ebner v. Fresh, Inc.

    818 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2016)   Cited 470 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "claims under the California consumer protection statutes are governed by the ‘reasonable consumer’ test"
  6. McBride v. Boughton

    123 Cal.App.4th 379 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 481 times
    Holding that common count will "stand or fall" with cause of action seeking the same recovery
  7. Hodgers-Durgin v. De La Vina

    199 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 534 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions" of federal immigration law
  8. Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co.

    105 Cal.App.4th 496 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 322 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase "likely to deceive" "indicates that the ad [or conduct] is such that it is probable that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled"
  9. Melchior v. New Line Productions, Inc.

    106 Cal.App.4th 779 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 313 times
    Holding that there is no cause of action in California for unjust enrichment
  10. Freeman v. Time, Inc.

    68 F.3d 285 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 324 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that promotional mailers for sweepstakes were not likely to deceive reasonable consumers because the mailers themselves contained qualifying language
  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 345,715 times   922 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 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 38,911 times   316 Legal Analyses
    Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"
  13. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 17,833 times   315 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices
  14. Section 1407 - Multidistrict litigation

    28 U.S.C. § 1407   Cited 7,054 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing consolidation of pretrial proceedings for related cases filed in multiple federal districts
  15. Section 1750 - Title of act

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1750   Cited 2,671 times   67 Legal Analyses

    This title may be cited as the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Ca. Civ. Code § 1750 Added by Stats. 1970, Ch. 1550.

  16. Section 17500 - Untrue or misleading advertising

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500   Cited 2,658 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Requiring action that originated in California to effect consumers in another state
  17. Section 2607 - Effect of acceptance; notice of breach; burden of establishing breach after acceptance; notice of claim or litigation to person answerable over

    Cal. Com. Code § 2607   Cited 108 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that a buyer "must, within a reasonable time after he or she discovers or should have discovered any breach, notify the seller of the breach or be barred from any remedy"