63 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 237,216 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (1992) Cited 28,095 times 139 Legal Analyses
Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"
United States v. Diebold, Inc.
369 U.S. 654 (1962) Cited 11,313 times
Holding that a court must construe all inferences and ambiguities against the movant and in favor of the non-moving party in determining whether a genuine issue of material act has been raised
Baker v. Carr
369 U.S. 186 (1962) Cited 5,242 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge Tennessee's apportionment of state representatives when that apportionment "effect[ed] a gross disproportion of representation to voting population"
Sierra Club v. Morton
405 U.S. 727 (1972) Cited 2,790 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff-organization did not establish Article III standing for injunctive relief where the organization failed to show that its members would be affected by the actions it sought to enjoin
Maya v. Centex Corp..
658 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 786 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that homeowners in a housing development had suffered an injury-in-fact from homebuilders’ alleged failure to disclose that they were advertising to unqualified buyers because "plaintiffs spent money that, absent defendants’ actions, they would not have spent"
McCarthy v. U.S.
850 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1988) Cited 1,160 times
Holding that a court "may review any evidence, such as affidavits and testimony, to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction"
San Diego County Gun Rights v. Reno
98 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 419 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs could not show injury in fact, because "[t]he complaint does not specify any particular time or date on which plaintiffs intend to violate the Act"
Krottner v. Starbucks Corp.
406 F. App'x 129 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 257 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs faced a "credible threat of harm" where a laptop was stolen containing their encrypted data and one plaintiff had a fraudulent bank account opened in his name
Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Information Co.
45 F.3d 1329 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 410 times
Holding that damages for emotional distress were available under the Fair Credit Reporting Act where the plaintiff suffered from sleeplessness, nervousness, frustration, and mental anguish as a result of the statutory violation
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 348,810 times 931 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 330,185 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs
28 U.S.C. § 1332 Cited 112,171 times 572 Legal Analyses
Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"
Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction
28 U.S.C. § 1367 Cited 62,389 times 78 Legal Analyses
Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"
Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Cited 17,942 times 315 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting unlawful business practices
Section 552 - Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings
5 U.S.C. § 552 Cited 12,214 times 557 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party
Section 1681 - Congressional findings and statement of purpose
15 U.S.C. § 1681 Cited 6,361 times 191 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the need to protect "the consumer's right to privacy"
Section 1691 - Scope of prohibition
15 U.S.C. § 1691 Cited 1,705 times 55 Legal Analyses
Providing that it is unlawful "for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction . . . because all or part of the applicant's income derives from any public assistance program"
Section 3300 - Generally
Cal. Civ. Code § 3300 Cited 686 times 1 Legal Analyses
Noting the appropriate measure is "the amount which will compensate the party aggrieved for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, or which, in the ordinary course of things, would be likely to result therefrom"
Section 3612 - Enforcement by Secretary
42 U.S.C. § 3612 Cited 566 times 1 Legal Analyses
Authorizing fee entitlement only for "plaintiffs"

In re Google, Inc. Privacy Policy Litigation

63 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

Holding that a court must construe all inferences and ambiguities against the movant and in favor of the non-moving party in determining whether a genuine issue of material act has been raised

Holding that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge Tennessee's apportionment of state representatives when that apportionment "effect[ed] a gross disproportion of representation to voting population"

Holding that plaintiff-organization did not establish Article III standing for injunctive relief where the organization failed to show that its members would be affected by the actions it sought to enjoin

Holding that homeowners in a housing development had suffered an injury-in-fact from homebuilders’ alleged failure to disclose that they were advertising to unqualified buyers because "plaintiffs spent money that, absent defendants’ actions, they would not have spent"

Holding that a court "may review any evidence, such as affidavits and testimony, to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction"

Holding that plaintiffs could not show injury in fact, because "[t]he complaint does not specify any particular time or date on which plaintiffs intend to violate the Act"

Holding that plaintiffs faced a "credible threat of harm" where a laptop was stolen containing their encrypted data and one plaintiff had a fraudulent bank account opened in his name

Holding that damages for emotional distress were available under the Fair Credit Reporting Act where the plaintiff suffered from sleeplessness, nervousness, frustration, and mental anguish as a result of the statutory violation

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

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"

Prohibiting unlawful business practices

Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party

Recognizing the need to protect "the consumer's right to privacy"

Providing that it is unlawful "for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction . . . because all or part of the applicant's income derives from any public assistance program"

Noting the appropriate measure is "the amount which will compensate the party aggrieved for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, or which, in the ordinary course of things, would be likely to result therefrom"

Authorizing fee entitlement only for "plaintiffs"