14 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 255,123 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
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 268,865 times 367 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' "
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
510 U.S. 517 (1994) Cited 2,837 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988
Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty
984 F.2d 1524 (9th Cir. 1993) Cited 1,366 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court properly struck lengthy, stale and previously litigated factual allegations to streamline the action
Barnes v. AT&T Pension Benefit Plan
718 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (N.D. Cal. 2010) Cited 401 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Rule 12(f) motions are disfavored due to the strong policy favoring resolution on the merits
Nurse v. U.S.
226 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 363 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that although the FTCA's discretionary function exception would generally protect the creation of policies and rules, government actors do not have discretion to create unconstitutional policies
Wyshak v. City Nat. Bank
607 F.2d 824 (9th Cir. 1979) Cited 646 times
Holding that plaintiff was not prejudiced by assertion of statute of limitations defense in amended answer because the defense would have been "effective at the outset of [plaintiff's] suit."
Qarbon.com Inc. v. eHelp Corp.
315 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2004) Cited 123 times
Holding an answer alleging plaintiff is "barred from recovery . . . by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, and unclean hands" did not provide fair notice of affirmative defenses because it did not allege facts justifying any of these doctrines
G G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Nguyen
Case No.: 10-CV-00168-LHK (N.D. Cal. Sep. 23, 2010) Cited 55 times
Finding that an "allegation ... that the Complaint [was] vague, ambitious, uncertain, and unintelligible [was] not an affirmative defense" and granting motion to strike on that basis
Solis v. Zenith Capital LLC
No. C 08-4854 PJH (N.D. Cal. May. 8, 2009) Cited 48 times
Noting that "[a]n attempt to reserve affirmative defenses for a future date is not a proper affirmative defense in itself" and that "if at some later date defendants seek to add affirmative defenses, they must comply with Rule 15"
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 348,310 times 930 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 157,506 times 196 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 100 - Definitions
35 U.S.C. § 100 Cited 613 times 97 Legal Analyses
Defining a " ‘joint research agreement’ " as a written agreement between "2 or more persons or entities"

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

14 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 that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988

Holding that the district court properly struck lengthy, stale and previously litigated factual allegations to streamline the action

Holding that Rule 12(f) motions are disfavored due to the strong policy favoring resolution on the merits

Holding that although the FTCA's discretionary function exception would generally protect the creation of policies and rules, government actors do not have discretion to create unconstitutional policies

Holding that plaintiff was not prejudiced by assertion of statute of limitations defense in amended answer because the defense would have been "effective at the outset of [plaintiff's] suit."

Holding an answer alleging plaintiff is "barred from recovery . . . by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, and unclean hands" did not provide fair notice of affirmative defenses because it did not allege facts justifying any of these doctrines

Finding that an "allegation ... that the Complaint [was] vague, ambitious, uncertain, and unintelligible [was] not an affirmative defense" and granting motion to strike on that basis

Noting that "[a]n attempt to reserve affirmative defenses for a future date is not a proper affirmative defense in itself" and that "if at some later date defendants seek to add affirmative defenses, they must comply with Rule 15"

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. . . ."

Defining a " ‘joint research agreement’ " as a written agreement between "2 or more persons or entities"