§Why CasetextPricing

Fifty-Six Hope Road Music Limited et al v. Jammin Java Corporation et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Amended Counterclaim

17 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 255,123 times   280 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 268,865 times   367 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. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Co.

    313 U.S. 487 (1941)   Cited 10,508 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Erie doctrine applies to conflict-of-law rules

  4. Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Services

    622 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 1,376 times
    Holding that fraud claims were pled with particularity when the allegations concerned a "relatively definite time frame" identifiable by discrete events, even though exact dates were not provided

  5. Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd.

    7 Cal.4th 503 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 1,177 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there is no separate cause of action for civil conspiracy, and that to establish such an action, a plaintiff must show some other underlying tort or civil wrong

  6. Carrizales v. Wainwright

    699 F.2d 1053 (11th Cir. 1983)   Cited 423 times
    Holding that state court's determination that trial court did not err in refusing to give a jury instruction based on construction of state statute did not warrant federal habeas review

  7. Sw. Adm'rs, Inc. v. Rozay's Transfer

    791 F.2d 769 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 315 times
    Holding that fraud in the execution is a valid defense, but that fraud in the inducement is not

  8. Patton v. Cox

    276 F.3d 493 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 173 times
    Holding that federal courts sitting in diversity must apply the forum state's choice of law rules to determine the controlling substantive law

  9. Reich v. Purcell

    67 Cal.2d 551 (Cal. 1967)   Cited 261 times
    Holding Missouri did not have a real interest in applying its law regarding damages limitation with respect to an accident that occurred in Missouri, because the defendant was a resident of Ohio and Missouri's interest was to shield Missouri residents from liability

  10. McMartin v. Children's Institute International

    212 Cal.App.3d 1393 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 52 times
    Interviewing children

  11. 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 348,416 times   930 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 91,257 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

  13. Rule 20 - Permissive Joinder of Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 20   Cited 11,363 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to "issue orders-including an order for separate trials."

  14. Rule 21 - Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 21   Cited 7,480 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts broad discretion when deciding whether to sever claims or to dismiss improperly joined claims or defendants

  15. Rule 14 - Third-Party Practice

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 14   Cited 3,648 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Striking improper third-party claim is appropriate remedy

  16. Section 2116 - Liability of directors

    Cal. Corp. Code § 2116   Cited 58 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Providing that “[t]he directors of a foreign corporation transacting intrastate business are liable to the corporation, its shareholders, creditors, receiver, liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy for ... [any] violation of official duty according to any applicable laws of the state or place of incorporation or organization, whether committed or done in this state or elsewhere”