§Why CasetextPricing

Opperman et al v. Path, Inc. et al

MOTION to Dismiss PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

4 Cited authorities

  1. Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.

    552 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 1,319 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[m]ere conclusory allegations" about the resignations of company executives did not, without more, give rise to a strong inference of scienter

  2. Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publishing

    512 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,367 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may deny leave to amend where amendment would be futile

  3. Kremen v. Cohen

    337 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 192 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California law permits an action for conversion of an internet domain name

  4. CARDONET, INC. v. IBM CORPORATION

    No. C-06-06637 RMW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2008)   Cited 1 times

    No. C-06-06637 RMW. April 7, 2008 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART IBM'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING CARDONET'S MOTION TO STRIKE [Re Docket Nos. 94, 99, 106] RONALD WHYTE, District Judge Defendant IBM Corporation ("IBM") has filed two motions for summary judgment. The first motion addresses which license agreement controls the parties' relationship, whether the applicable agreement is susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation, and whether the interpretation requires