§Why CasetextPricing

Mee v. I A Nutrition, Inc.

RESPONSE/Opposition

37 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 254,855 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. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano

    563 U.S. 2011 (2011)   Cited 1,347 times   57 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs had adequately pled a Rule 10b–5 claim—where defendant had disputed the sufficiency of the allegations with respect to the elements of scienter and materiality—by alleging that defendant had forestalled a stock price drop by making affirmative statements confirming the market's impression that defendant's leading product was safe, despite defendant's awareness of evidence suggesting a significant risk that the nasal spray led to loss of sense of smell; when the risk was finally (belatedly) disclosed, the stock price plummeted

  3. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.

    505 U.S. 504 (1992)   Cited 2,404 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an express warranty was not a "requirement ... imposed under State law" because the obligation was imposed by the warrantor

  4. Parks School of Business, Inc. v. Symington

    51 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 2,541 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a corporation had standing to sue under § 1981 alleging that defendants discriminated against it because it contracts with racial minorities

  5. Williams v. Gerber Products

    552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 929 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "reasonable consumers expect that the ingredient list ... confirms other representations on the packaging"

  6. McKell v. Washington Mutual Inc.

    142 Cal.App.4th 1457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 706 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a loan transaction is a business practice under the UCL

  7. Kasky v. Nike

    27 Cal.4th 939 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 671 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

  8. In re First Alliance Mortg. Co.

    471 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 389 times
    Holding that California law requires clear and convincing evidence of fraud, oppression, or malice

  9. Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.

    135 Cal.App.4th 663 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 318 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal cases requiring “'extrinsic evidence,' such as expert testimony or consumer surveys...do not accurately reflect California law.”

  10. Linear Tech. v. Applied Materials

    152 Cal.App.4th 115 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 217 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a corporate plaintiff "may not rely on the UCL" in a contract action where neither the general public or individual consumers are implicated

  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 348,148 times   929 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 343 - Misbranded food

    21 U.S.C. § 343   Cited 570 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Setting labeling requirements for food products

  13. Section 2313 - Express warranties by affirmation, promise, description, sample

    Cal. Com. Code § 2313   Cited 369 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that an express warranty is a "promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods"

  14. Section 1791.2 - Express warranty

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1791.2   Cited 112 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Defining "express warranty" as " written statement arising out of a sale to the consumer of a consumer good pursuant to which the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer undertakes to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the consumer good or to provide compensation if there is a failure in utility or performance"

  15. Section 101.9 - Nutrition labeling of food

    21 C.F.R. § 101.9   Cited 140 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that "Vitamin C" and "Ascorbic acid" are "synonym" that may be used in the alternative in a product's nutritional information labeling

  16. Section 100.1 - Petitions requesting exemption from preemption for State or local requirements

    21 C.F.R. § 100.1   Cited 104 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining the meaning of "not identical"

  17. Section 101.18 - Misbranding of food

    21 C.F.R. § 101.18   Cited 24 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Governing product names “generally understood by the consumer to mean the product of a particular manufacturer or distributor”