48 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 252,459 times 279 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
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 266,381 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' "
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"
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"
In re Tobacco II Cases
46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) Cited 1,203 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp.
463 U.S. 60 (1983) Cited 748 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding ban on "unsolicited advertisements for contraceptives" was not narrowly tailored to interest in "aiding parents' efforts to discuss birth control with their children."
Williams v. Gerber Products
552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 916 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding that "reasonable consumers expect that the ingredient list ... confirms other representations on the packaging"
Kasky v. Nike
27 Cal.4th 939 (Cal. 2002) Cited 665 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
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"
Hunt v. City of Los Angeles
638 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 275 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs' sale of shea butter and incense was not "fully protected speech" because they "are selling items that have a predominantly utilitarian, not an expressive, purpose and do not incorporate artwork created by Plaintiffs"
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 345,620 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 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 90,448 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
Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Cited 17,827 times 315 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting unlawful business practices
Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden
15 U.S.C. § 1125 Cited 15,268 times 320 Legal Analyses
Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"
Section 17500 - Untrue or misleading advertising
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 Cited 2,656 times 64 Legal Analyses
Requiring action that originated in California to effect consumers in another state

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

48 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

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 "the standards for establishing standing under section 17204 and eligibility for restitution under section 17203 are wholly distinct"

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"

Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied

Holding ban on "unsolicited advertisements for contraceptives" was not narrowly tailored to interest in "aiding parents' efforts to discuss birth control with their children."

Holding that "reasonable consumers expect that the ingredient list ... confirms other representations on the packaging"

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

Holding that defendants cannot be liable for false advertising when they were not "responsible for disseminating the offending advertisements"

Holding that plaintiffs' sale of shea butter and incense was not "fully protected speech" because they "are selling items that have a predominantly utilitarian, not an expressive, purpose and do not incorporate artwork created by Plaintiffs"

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

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

Prohibiting unlawful business practices

Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

Requiring action that originated in California to effect consumers in another state