§Why CasetextPricing

Brickman v. Fitbit, Inc.

MOTION for Summary Judgment

76 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 239,217 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 218,869 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  3. Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court

    51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 1,585 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the standards for establishing standing under section 17204 and eligibility for restitution under section 17203 are wholly distinct"

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

    29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,679 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"

  5. In re Tobacco II Cases

    46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 1,215 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

  6. Williams v. Gerber Products

    552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 950 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "reasonable consumers expect that the ingredient list ... confirms other representations on the packaging"

  7. Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

    530 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 926 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "claims under the Magnuson–Moss Act stand or fall with express and implied warranty claims under state law"

  8. Small v. Fritz Cos., Inc.

    30 Cal.4th 167 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 635 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that complaint for negligent misrepresentation in a holder action must be "pled with the same specificity required in a holder's action for fraud."

  9. Hernandez v. Spacelabs Medical Inc.

    343 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 625 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff's own statements that discriminatory acts occurred in "late 1998 or 1999," without additional support, were "insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment"

  10. Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co.

    23 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 563 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding restitution is "the return of the excess of what the plaintiff gave the defendant over the value of what the plaintiff received"

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 333,232 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 18,123 times   315 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices

  13. Section 1750 - Title of act

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1750   Cited 2,719 times   68 Legal Analyses

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

  14. Section 501.201 - Short title

    Fla. Stat. § 501.201   Cited 994 times   9 Legal Analyses

    This part shall be known and may be cited as the "Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act." Fla. Stat. § 501.201 s. 1, ch. 73-124.