40 Cited authorities

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 266,259 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' "
Daimler AG v. Bauman
571 U.S. 117 (2014) Cited 5,603 times 236 Legal Analyses
Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"
Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing
564 U.S. 604 (2011) Cited 745 times 143 Legal Analyses
Holding that state tort law that required generic drug manufacturers to provide adequate warning labels was preempted where federal law required manufacturers to use the same labels as their brand-name counterparts
Swartz v. KPMG LLP
476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 2,859 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”
Mut. Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett
570 U.S. 472 (2013) Cited 415 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding "state-law design-defect claims that turn on the adequacy of a drug's warnings are pre-empted by federal law under PLIVA"
Ranza v. Nike, Inc.
793 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) Cited 575 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that employer was not an alter ego of its parent corporation, but that if it had been, the parent corporation's contacts could be attributed to the employer to establish personal jurisdiction over the employer
Santa Barbara v. Superior Court
41 Cal.4th 747 (Cal. 2007) Cited 210 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that an agreement regarding sports or recreational programs or services that purports to release liability for future gross negligence is generally unenforceable as a matter of public policy
Hopkins v. Women's Division
238 F. Supp. 2d 174 (D.D.C. 2002) Cited 171 times
Finding it proper to consider arguments conceded when not addressed in the opposition to a motion to dismiss
In re Sony Grand Wega KDF-E A10/A20 Series Rear Projection HDTV Television Litigation
758 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (S.D. Cal. 2010) Cited 121 times
Holding court not barred “from considering [defendant's] motion to dismiss” claim that had already withstood previous motion to dismiss; noting “[r]ather than proceed with only th[at] claim . . ., [p]laintiffs chose to file an amended complaint”
Wimbush v. Wyeth
619 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2010) Cited 109 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the 2005 amendment did not apply retroactively
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 345,449 times 922 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 94,784 times 651 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Section 355 - New drugs
21 U.S.C. § 355 Cited 2,243 times 336 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to change the date on which an ANDA may be approved if "either party to the action failed to reasonably cooperate in expediting the action"
Section 2313 - Express warranties by affirmation, promise, description, sample
Cal. Com. Code § 2313 Cited 364 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that an express warranty is a "promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods"

Dumas et al v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al

40 Cited authorities

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' "

Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"

Holding that state tort law that required generic drug manufacturers to provide adequate warning labels was preempted where federal law required manufacturers to use the same labels as their brand-name counterparts

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”

Holding "state-law design-defect claims that turn on the adequacy of a drug's warnings are pre-empted by federal law under PLIVA"

Holding that employer was not an alter ego of its parent corporation, but that if it had been, the parent corporation's contacts could be attributed to the employer to establish personal jurisdiction over the employer

Holding that an agreement regarding sports or recreational programs or services that purports to release liability for future gross negligence is generally unenforceable as a matter of public policy

Finding it proper to consider arguments conceded when not addressed in the opposition to a motion to dismiss

Holding court not barred “from considering [defendant's] motion to dismiss” claim that had already withstood previous motion to dismiss; noting “[r]ather than proceed with only th[at] claim . . ., [p]laintiffs chose to file an amended complaint”

Holding that the 2005 amendment did not apply retroactively

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Granting the court discretion to change the date on which an ANDA may be approved if "either party to the action failed to reasonably cooperate in expediting the action"

Stating that an express warranty is a "promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods"