§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition_to_plaintiffs_motion_for_preliminary_injunction

Motion

14 Cited authorities

  1. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.

    20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 2,484 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"

  2. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

    29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,705 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff cannot recover damages under Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200 unless plaintiff has "an ownership interest in the money it seeks to recover"

  3. Mort v. United States

    86 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 138 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]quitable relief should not be denied, however, unless the available legal remedy is against the same person from whom equitable relief is sought."

  4. In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.

    903 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Cal. 2012)   Cited 81 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the computer network system used to provide PlayStation Network services, which permitted access to various third party services, did not constitute a "service" under the CLRA

  5. Philips v. Ford Motor Co.

    Case No. 14-CV-02989-LHK (N.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2015)   Cited 56 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs plausibly alleged a CLRA claim against the manufacturer of their cars despite not purchasing the car directly from the manufacturer

  6. Shersher v. Superior Court

    154 Cal.App.4th 1491 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 60 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiff had a valid UCL claim against the defendant-manufacturer despite purchasing the product at issue from a third-party retailer and noting further that the UCL is to be interpreted broadly

  7. Wolfe v. State Farm Fire Casualty Ins. Co.

    46 Cal.App.4th 554 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 76 times
    Finding judicial restraint proper because "no specific statutory provision prohibits respondents from stopping or curtailing sales of homeowners insurance policies"

  8. Moss v. Infinity Ins. Co.

    197 F. Supp. 3d 1191 (N.D. Cal. 2016)   Cited 28 times
    Dismissing claim under the "fraudulent" prong of the UCL on finding of "insufficient detail under Rule 9(b)"

  9. Munning v. Gap, Inc.

    238 F. Supp. 3d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2017)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Dismissing the UCL claim with prejudice because there was an adequate remedy at law under the plaintiff's breach of contract and breach of express warranty claims

  10. Durkee v. Ford Motor Co.

    No. C 14-0617 PJH (N.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2014)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. C 14-0617 PJH 09-02-2014 MICHAEL DURKEE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant. PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant's motion for an order dismissing the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim came on for hearing before this court on August 20, 2014. Plaintiffs appeared by their counsel Richard Wirtz, and defendant Ford Motor Company ("Ford") appeared by its counsel Frank Kelly and Amir Nassihi. Having