§Why CasetextPricing

AT&T Mobility LLC et al v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

29 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 280,791 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

  2. Associated General Contractors v. Carpenters

    459 U.S. 519 (1983)   Cited 5,250 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union lacked standing to sue for injuries passed on to it by intermediaries

  3. Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois

    431 U.S. 720 (1977)   Cited 1,314 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Holding that indirect purchasers cannot recover damages under federal antitrust law

  4. In re Tobacco II Cases

    46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 1,230 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied

  5. California v. Arc America Corp.

    490 U.S. 93 (1989)   Cited 506 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sherman Act, which does not allow indirect purchaser actions, does not preempt state laws that allow indirect purchasers to obtain relief

  6. Laub v. United States Department of the Interior

    342 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 496 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that party seeking discovery must show that denial resulted in prejudice

  7. Hawaii Med. Ass'n v. Hawaii Med. Service

    113 Haw. 77 (Haw. 2006)   Cited 201 times
    Holding that businesses have standing to challenge unfair methods of competition only if "the nature of the competition is sufficiently alleged in the complaint"

  8. American Ad Management, Inc. v. General Telephone Co.

    190 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 234 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that authorized sellers of advertising space, who purchased advertising space in the defendant's Yellow Pages telephone directory and then sold the space to customers, had antitrust standing even though not consumers or competitors

  9. William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co.

    668 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 367 times
    Holding that notice is an important factor in considering whether a late shift in the thrust of the case prejudices the other party

  10. Paul v. Intel Corp.

    496 F. Supp. 2d 404 (D. Del. 2007)   Cited 99 times
    Holding that a "[c]laim for damages based upon the common law tort of monopolization is not cognizable under California law"

  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 362,607 times   962 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 164,455 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 18,446 times   316 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices

  14. Section 480-2 - Unfair competition, practices, declared unlawful

    Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2   Cited 518 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Declaring unlawful "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce"

  15. Section 480-1 - Definitions

    Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-1   Cited 114 times
    Defining "consumer"

  16. Section 59-801 - Restraint of trade or commerce; unlawful; penalty

    Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 59-801   Cited 17 times

    Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce, within this state, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy shall be deemed guilty of a Class IV felony. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 59-801 Laws 1905, c. 162, § 1, p. 636; R.S.1913, § 4045; C.S.1922, § 3448; C.S.1929, § 59-801; R.S.1943, § 59-801; Laws 1977, LB 39, § 63; Laws 1983, LB 32, § 1.