§Why CasetextPricing

Contreras et al v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A Inc. et al

Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

38 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 252,459 times   279 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 266,381 times   365 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

  3. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA

    317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 4,198 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

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

    20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 2,420 times   23 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"

  5. Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank v. Roper

    445 U.S. 326 (1980)   Cited 986 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that denial of class certification is appealable after entry of final judgment

  6. Wool v. Tandem Computers Inc.

    818 F.2d 1433 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 2,035 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court could, at pleading stage, "presume" corporate officers who had "direct involvement . . . in [corporation's] financial statements" were responsible for misleading information contained in corporation's prospectus

  7. Gilligan v. Jamco Development Corp.

    108 F.3d 246 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 958 times
    Setting forth elements of a FHA claim

  8. Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

    144 Cal.App.4th 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 561 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff failed to plead a fraudulent omission where "no representation was made to which the alleged concealment was contrary"

  9. Neubronner v. Milken

    6 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 787 times
    Holding that Rule 9(b)'s purpose is "to prevent the filing of a complaint as a pretext for the discovery of unknown wrongs" and finding the Section 20A insufficiently pled because it lacked "facts [such] as the times, dates, places" or "allegations on information and belief . . . [to] state the factual basis for the belief"

  10. Weiss v. Regal Collections

    385 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2004)   Cited 418 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, with a maximum recovery of $1,000 plus attorneys' fees and expenses, were "acutely susceptible to mootness"

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 156,056 times   193 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 38,902 times   316 Legal Analyses
    Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"

  13. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 17,827 times   315 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices

  14. Section 17204 - Actions for Injunctions by Attorney General, District Attorney, County Counsel, and City Attorneys

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204   Cited 959 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Allowing actions brought by "any person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property"

  15. Section 1782 - Notice and demand to correct, repair, replace or rectify goods or services

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1782   Cited 285 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that no action for damages on behalf of a class of consumers may be maintained if a person alleged to have violated section 1770 shows that he or she has identified and notified the members of the class that he or she will remedy the violations upon request and he or she has ceased or will cease to engage in the violations