§Why CasetextPricing

ALS Scan, Inc. v. Cloudflare, Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim on which Relief can be Granted 35

32 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 263,589 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 276,823 times   369 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

  3. Neitzke v. Williams

    490 U.S. 319 (1989)   Cited 57,498 times
    Holding that "an in forma pauperis pro se complaint may only be dismissed as frivolous ... when the petitioner cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in law or in fact"

  4. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.

    545 U.S. 913 (2005)   Cited 802 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable”

  5. Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories

    456 U.S. 844 (1982)   Cited 1,281 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe

  6. A M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.

    239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 750 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Napster could not invoke § 1008 as a defense to copyright infringement claims because its technology did not fit within the AHRA’s definitions

  7. Ellison v. Robertson

    357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 664 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the district court erred in concluding on summary judgment that [the ISP] satisfied the requirements of § 512" because the record showed that the ISP "allowed notices of potential copyright infringement to fall into a vacuum and to go unheeded," indicating it "had not reasonably implemented its policy against repeat infringers"

  8. Lockheed Martin. v. Network Solutions

    194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 639 times
    Holding that the court must consider “the extent of control exercised by the defendant over the third party's means of infringement”

  9. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc.

    487 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 484 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an online image search index was "highly transformative"

  10. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC

    718 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013)   Cited 370 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant’s use of "access-facilitating processes that automatically occur when a user upload[ed] a video," including making four copies of video in various formats so that they could be viewed on multiple devices, did not disqualify it from "by reason of storage at the direction of the user" safe harbor

  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 357,946 times   950 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 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 162,144 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  13. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 18,268 times   315 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices

  14. Section 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online

    17 U.S.C. § 512   Cited 599 times   187 Legal Analyses
    Denying the safe harbor if the service provider receives "a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity"