§Why CasetextPricing

L.A. Taxi Cooperative, Inc. et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

REPLY

39 Cited authorities

  1. Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court

    51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 1,562 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the standards for establishing standing under section 17204 and eligibility for restitution under section 17203 are wholly distinct"

  2. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

    29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,654 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff cannot recover damages under Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200 unless plaintiff has "an ownership interest in the money it seeks to recover"

  3. Cook, Perkiss Liehe v. N.C. Collection Serv

    911 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1990)   Cited 2,217 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an advertisement that "impl[ies] lower rates and better services than those of a competitor . . . constitutes puffery and is not actionable as false advertising"

  4. Newcal Industries, Inc. v. IKON Office Solution

    513 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 850 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff who had already filed a fraud suit under the Sherman Act, Lanham Act, and RICO had standing to seek a declaration that the defendant's fraudulently procured contracts were invalid

  5. Kasky v. Nike

    27 Cal.4th 939 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 667 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements by the defendant about the working conditions of its overseas employees were not protected by the First Amendment and could give rise to a claim for fraudulent business practices under the UCL

  6. Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co.

    108 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 681 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendants cannot be liable for false advertising when they were not "responsible for disseminating the offending advertisements"

  7. In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation

    754 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (C.D. Cal. 2010)   Cited 193 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that one or more named plaintiffs may satisfy the notice requirements of section1782 on behalf of the entire putative class

  8. Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Co.

    330 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 207 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because the plaintiff's video “only sold approximately 17,000 copies between 1986 and 1999,” it could not be considered “widely disseminated” despite some evidence of national publicity

  9. Facenda v. N.F.L. Films, Inc.

    542 F.3d 1007 (3d Cir. 2008)   Cited 175 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding long-form promotional video for video game was commercial speech

  10. Franklin v. Dynamic Details, Inc.

    116 Cal.App.4th 375 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 168 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding e-mails not actionable as libel where e-mails expressed opinions and "fully disclosed provably true facts on which the opinions were based"