41 Cited authorities

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 279,933 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
Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.
552 U.S. 312 (2008) Cited 1,059 times 62 Legal Analyses
Holding that a State’s “‘requirements’” “includ[e] [the state’s] common-law duties”
U.S. v. Ritchie
342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 3,944 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court may consider "certain materials—documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice—without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment"
Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.
567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 2,352 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity
Carvalho v. Equifax Information Services, LLC
629 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 1,197 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding “plaintiff who makes a claim in his complaint, but fails to raise the issue in response to a defendant's motion to dismiss, has effectively abandoned his claim”
Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.
44 Cal.3d 1103 (Cal. 1988) Cited 1,025 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff who suspects wrongdoing but is unaware of any specific facts establishing wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, may not delay bringing an action until she discovers such facts or their legal significance
In re Medtronic, Inc., Sprint Fidelis Leads
623 F.3d 1200 (8th Cir. 2010) Cited 320 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding in medical-device context that potential additional warnings were "precisely the type of state requirement that is 'different from or in addition to' the federal requirement and therefore preempted" (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 360k)
Stengel v. Medtronic Inc.
704 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2013) Cited 230 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the MDA does not preempt a state-law claim for violating a state-law duty that parallels a federal-law duty under the MDA"
Perez v. Nidek Co.
711 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) Cited 189 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that because a plaintiff did not intend to have further eye surgery, he did not have standing to pursue injunctive relief under the California CLRA
Riley v. Cordis Corp.
625 F. Supp. 2d 769 (D. Minn. 2009) Cited 159 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that components of a PMA-approved device "work together as a single medical device" and thus "it makes no sense . . . to pick apart the components of a medical device and apply different preemption analyses to different components"
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 163,952 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 337 - Proceedings in name of United States; provision as to subpoenas
21 U.S.C. § 337 Cited 694 times 22 Legal Analyses
Providing that suits to enforce the FDCA generally must be brought "by and in the name of the United States"

De La Paz v. Bayer AG et al

41 Cited authorities

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

Holding that a State’s “‘requirements’” “includ[e] [the state’s] common-law duties”

Holding that a court may consider "certain materials—documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice—without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment"

Holding that circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity

Holding “plaintiff who makes a claim in his complaint, but fails to raise the issue in response to a defendant's motion to dismiss, has effectively abandoned his claim”

Holding that a plaintiff who suspects wrongdoing but is unaware of any specific facts establishing wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, may not delay bringing an action until she discovers such facts or their legal significance

Holding in medical-device context that potential additional warnings were "precisely the type of state requirement that is 'different from or in addition to' the federal requirement and therefore preempted" (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 360k)

Holding that "the MDA does not preempt a state-law claim for violating a state-law duty that parallels a federal-law duty under the MDA"

Holding that because a plaintiff did not intend to have further eye surgery, he did not have standing to pursue injunctive relief under the California CLRA

Holding that components of a PMA-approved device "work together as a single medical device" and thus "it makes no sense . . . to pick apart the components of a medical device and apply different preemption analyses to different components"

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Providing that suits to enforce the FDCA generally must be brought "by and in the name of the United States"