§Why CasetextPricing

Leary et al v. BP Lubricants USA, Inc. et al

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

25 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 253,227 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

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 267,097 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' "

  3. Phillips v. County of Allegheny

    515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008)   Cited 16,853 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court need not permit a curative amendment if such amendment would be futile

  4. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside

    578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009)   Cited 14,107 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion "in denying a motion for a class action determination which was untimely under the local rule"

  5. In re Burlington Coat Factory

    114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997)   Cited 7,662 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may consider a "document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint" when deciding a motion to dismiss

  6. Lum v. Bank of Am.

    361 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2004)   Cited 2,090 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "mak[ing] general claims that defendants misrepresented that the prime rate is the lowest rate charged to their most creditworthy customers" does not satisfy the Rule 9(b) standard because "they do not indicate the date, time, or place of the alleged misrepresentations, the financial transactions in connection with which these misrepresentations were made, or who made the misrepresentation to whom"

  7. In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation

    618 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2010)   Cited 1,462 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that per se "hub and spoke" theory was not properly pled when complaint detailed specific agreements between multiple insurers and a single broker, but did not allege facts such that the court could infer that the insurers had agreed horizontally to enter into their respective agreements with the broker

  8. Pryor v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

    288 F.3d 548 (3d Cir. 2002)   Cited 1,296 times
    Holding that "[a]lthough a district court may not consider matters extraneous to the pleadings, a document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint may be considered without converting the motion to dismiss in one for summary judgment"

  9. Garner v. First American Life Insurance Co.

    401 U.S. 974 (1971)   Cited 277 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the privilege may be overcome by a showing of good cause in shareholder derivative suits

  10. Kauffman v. Dreyfus Fund, Inc.

    434 F.2d 727 (3d Cir. 1970)   Cited 275 times
    Holding that mutual fund shareholder had no standing to bring his own action to recover for diminution in value of the shares resulting from harm inflicted on the fund

  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 346,341 times   923 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Section 2310 - Remedies in consumer disputes

    15 U.S.C. § 2310   Cited 1,606 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Permitting recovery of "a sum equal to the aggregate amount of cost and expenses (including attorneys’ fees based on actual time expended)"

  13. Section 2302 - Rules governing contents of warranties

    15 U.S.C. § 2302   Cited 211 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Requiring warranties to have certain contents, including the parts covered, statement of remedies if parts are nonconforming, exclusions, procedures for obtain remedies, and other items

  14. Section 700.4 - Parties "actually making" a written warranty

    16 C.F.R. § 700.4   Cited 12 times

    Section 110(f) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310(f) , provides that only the supplier "actually making" a written warranty is liable for purposes of FTC and private enforcement of the Act. A supplier who does no more than distribute or sell a consumer product covered by a written warranty offered by another person or business and which identifies that person or business as the warrantor is not liable for failure of the written warranty to comply with the Act or rules thereunder. However, other actions and

  15. Section 700.10 - Prohibited tying

    16 C.F.R. § 700.10   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) Section 102(c), 15 U.S.C. 2302(c) , prohibits tying arrangements that condition coverage under a written warranty on the consumer's use of an article or service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name unless that article or service is provided without charge to the consumer. (b) Under a limited warranty that provides only for replacement of defective parts and no portion of labor charges, section 102(c), 15 U.S.C. 2302(c) , prohibits a condition that the consumer use only service (labor)