94 Cited authorities

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.
534 U.S. 506 (2002) Cited 16,784 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding with regard to a 67-year-old plaintiff and a 59-year-old comparator that " difference of eight years between the age of the person discharged and his replacement . . . is not insignificant"
Scheuer v. Rhodes
416 U.S. 232 (1974) Cited 22,302 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that executive branch officers had qualified immunity
Conley v. Gibson
355 U.S. 41 (1957) Cited 58,523 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"
Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit
507 U.S. 163 (1993) Cited 5,116 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that there is no heightened pleading requirement in § 1983 suits against municipalities
Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital
425 U.S. 738 (1976) Cited 6,278 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a conspiracy against a North Carolina hospital had "a substantial effect on interstate commerce," and hence was covered by the Sherman Act, because it could, inter alia, reduce the hospital's purchases of out-of-state medicines and supplies
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.
504 U.S. 451 (1992) Cited 2,289 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that "it is clearly reasonable to infer that [the defendant] has market power to raise prices and drive out competition in the aftermarkets" for service and parts despite an undisputed lack of market power in the initial product
Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.
20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999) Cited 2,422 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"
DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton
833 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1987) Cited 2,904 times
Holding that district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs' motion to file fourth amended complaint
Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc.
356 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 1,308 times
Holding that the plaintiff's admittedly "opaque" allegations of discriminatory retaliation were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss
Cook, Perkiss Liehe v. N.C. Collection Serv
911 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1990) Cited 2,221 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"
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 346,412 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
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 156,480 times 194 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 90,683 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 17,850 times 315 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting unlawful business practices
Section 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
15 U.S.C. § 2 Cited 4,386 times 30 Legal Analyses
In § 2 cases under the Sherman Act, as in § 7 cases under the Clayton Act (Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325) there may be submarkets that are separate economic entities.
Section 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty
15 U.S.C. § 1 Cited 2,912 times 68 Legal Analyses
Making illegal "[e]very contract, combination ..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade"
Section 17500 - Untrue or misleading advertising
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 Cited 2,662 times 64 Legal Analyses
Requiring action that originated in California to effect consumers in another state
Section 17204 - Actions for Injunctions by Attorney General, District Attorney, County Counsel, and City Attorneys
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 Cited 959 times 4 Legal Analyses
Allowing actions brought by "any person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property"

Newcal Industries, Inc. et al v. Ikon Office Solutions, Inc., et al

94 Cited authorities

Holding with regard to a 67-year-old plaintiff and a 59-year-old comparator that " difference of eight years between the age of the person discharged and his replacement . . . is not insignificant"

Holding that executive branch officers had qualified immunity

Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"

Holding that there is no heightened pleading requirement in § 1983 suits against municipalities

Holding that a conspiracy against a North Carolina hospital had "a substantial effect on interstate commerce," and hence was covered by the Sherman Act, because it could, inter alia, reduce the hospital's purchases of out-of-state medicines and supplies

Holding that "it is clearly reasonable to infer that [the defendant] has market power to raise prices and drive out competition in the aftermarkets" for service and parts despite an undisputed lack of market power in the initial product

Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"

Holding that district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs' motion to file fourth amended complaint

Holding that the plaintiff's admittedly "opaque" allegations of discriminatory retaliation were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss

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"

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

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

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

In § 2 cases under the Sherman Act, as in § 7 cases under the Clayton Act (Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325) there may be submarkets that are separate economic entities.

Making illegal "[e]very contract, combination ..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade"

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

Allowing actions brought by "any person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property"