§Why CasetextPricing

Consumer Cellular, Incorporated v. ConsumerAffairs.com, Inc. et al

Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Claims and Supporting Memorandum. Oral Argument requested.

76 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 263,477 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 276,716 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. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

    572 U.S. 118 (2014)   Cited 2,981 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the respondent could not "obtain relief" under § 1125 "without evidence of injury proximately caused by [the petitioner's] alleged misrepresentations"

  4. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co.

    473 U.S. 479 (1985)   Cited 4,272 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the fact that a statute can be "applied in situations not expressly anticipated by Congress does not demonstrate ambiguity. It demonstrates breadth."

  5. Reves v. Ernst Young

    507 U.S. 170 (1993)   Cited 1,433 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant "participates" if he "directs" the pattern of racketeering activity

  6. Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.

    547 U.S. 451 (2006)   Cited 868 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a business could not recover against its competitor for a scheme to defraud the New York State tax authority that allowed the defendant to undercut the plaintiff's prices

  7. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA

    317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 4,322 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Rule 9(b) pleading standards apply to California CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims because, though fraud is not an essential element of those statutes, a plaintiff alleges a fraudulent course of conduct as the basis of those claims

  8. Swartz v. KPMG LLP

    476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 2,933 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[t]o the extent Swartz seeks a declaration of defendants' liability for damages sought for his other causes of action,” claim must be dismissed as “merely duplicative”

  9. Navellier v. Sletten

    29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,946 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claim for relief filed in federal district court is protected activity

  10. Schreiber Distributing v. Serv-Well Furniture

    806 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 2,376 times
    Holding that Rule 9(b) requires the plaintiff to "state with particularity" the "circumstances constituting the fraud," including a statement of "the time, place, and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentation."

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 335,322 times   160 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 162,084 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 1962 - Prohibited activities

    18 U.S.C. § 1962   Cited 16,178 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Specifying prohibited activities

  14. Section 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

    47 U.S.C. § 230   Cited 1,064 times   169 Legal Analyses
    Preempting state law

  15. Section 164.075 - Extortion

    ORS § 164.075   Cited 30 times
    Defining extortion