35 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. Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo

    544 U.S. 336 (2005)   Cited 3,615 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”
  4. Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon

    457 U.S. 147 (1982)   Cited 5,768 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that named plaintiff must prove “much more than the validity of his own claim”; the individual plaintiff must show that “the individual's claim and the class claims will share common questions of law or fact and that the individual's claim will be typical of the class claims,” explicitly referencing the “commonality” and “typicality” requirements of Rule 23
  5. Shady Grove Orthopedic v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    559 U.S. 393 (2010)   Cited 1,204 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that rules of civil procedure allowing multiple claims to be litigated together "neither change plaintiffs' separate entitlements to relief nor abridge defendants' rights; they alter only how the claims are processed"
  6. In re Tobacco II Cases

    46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 1,224 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
  7. Castano v. the Am. Tobacco Co.

    84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996)   Cited 1,023 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court had not engaged in a rigorous analysis of predominance—that is, whether a Rule 23(b) class type was appropriate
  8. Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans

    571 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 639 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court abused its discretion in certifying class by relying on uniform exemption policy "to the near exclusion of other factors"
  9. Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG

    443 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 617 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding "no class may be certified that contains members lacking Article III standing"
  10. Molski v. Gleich

    318 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 326 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that decisions based on per se rules are not appropriate because they nullify the discretion vested in the district court through Rule 23
  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. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 35,882 times   1250 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"
  14. Section 1761 - Definitions

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1761   Cited 266 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Defining “consumer” under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act as “an individual who seeks or acquires, by purchase or lease, any goods or services for personal, family, or household purposes”
  15. Section 14 - Construction of words used in present tense

    Cal. Civ. Code § 14   Cited 183 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) Words used in this code in the present tense include the future as well as the present; words used in the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter; the singular number includes the plural, and the plural the singular; the word person includes a corporation as well as a natural person; county includes city and county; writing includes printing and typewriting; oath includes affirmation or declaration; and every mode of oral statement, under oath or affirmation, is embraced by the term

  16. Section 14 - Seal required to be affixed to paper

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 14   Cited 35 times

    When the seal of a Court, public officer, or person is required by law to be affixed to any paper, the word "seal" includes an impression of such seal upon the paper alone as well as upon wax or a wafer affixed thereto. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 14 Enacted 1872.