§Why CasetextPricing

P2f Holdings Llc v. Vicini America, Inc. et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

40 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 252,377 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 266,313 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. Daimler AG v. Bauman

    571 U.S. 117 (2014)   Cited 5,609 times   236 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"

  4. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

    471 U.S. 462 (1985)   Cited 16,817 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant has "fair warning" if he purposefully directs his activities at residents of the forum and if the litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of or relating to those activities.

  5. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall

    466 U.S. 408 (1984)   Cited 9,266 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation

  6. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

    444 U.S. 286 (1980)   Cited 10,825 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an Oklahoma court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a car retailer when the retailer's only connection to Oklahoma was the fact that a car sold in New York became involved in an accident in Oklahoma

  7. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court

    480 U.S. 102 (1987)   Cited 4,871 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in suit by Taiwanese manufacturer for indemnification against Japanese manufacturer, the assertion by California court of personal jurisdiction over Japanese manufacturer was unreasonable

  8. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

    326 U.S. 310 (1945)   Cited 22,573 times   109 Legal Analyses
    Holding that states may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants with "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ " (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) )

  9. Swartz v. KPMG LLP

    476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 2,861 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[t]o the extent Swartz seeks a declaration of defendants' liability for damages sought for his other causes of action,” claim must be dismissed as “merely duplicative”

  10. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.

    374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 2,655 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in the tort context, "[t]he `express aiming' analysis depends, to a significant degree, on the specific type of tort or other wrongful conduct at issue"

  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 345,529 times   922 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 1391 - Venue generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1391   Cited 27,781 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

  13. Rule 19 - Required Joinder of Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 19   Cited 9,519 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Holding a person must be joined if disposing the action in the person's absence may leave an existing party subject to a "substantial" risk of incurring inconsistent obligations