§Why CasetextPricing

Paul Stockinger et al v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint

87 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 263,477 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 276,716 times   369 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

  3. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors

    266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 5,226 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss

  4. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA

    317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 4,322 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Rule 9(b) pleading standards apply to California CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims because, though fraud is not an essential element of those statutes, a plaintiff alleges a fraudulent course of conduct as the basis of those claims

  5. Arista Records v. Doe 3

    604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010)   Cited 3,060 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he Twombly plausibility standard . . . does not prevent a plaintiff from pleading facts alleged upon information and belief where the facts are peculiarly within the possession and control of the defendant, or where the belief is based on factual information that makes the inference of culpability plausible"

  6. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools

    503 U.S. 60 (1992)   Cited 1,047 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when "remedies are equitable in nature ... it is axiomatic that a court should determine the adequacy of a remedy in law before resorting to equitable relief"

  7. Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.

    567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 2,334 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity

  8. Knievel v. ESPN

    393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 2,403 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that incorporation by reference doctrine extends “to situations in which the plaintiff's claim depends on the contents of a document, the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss, and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document, even though the plaintiff does not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint”

  9. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

    29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,692 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff cannot recover damages under Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200 unless plaintiff has "an ownership interest in the money it seeks to recover"

  10. Wilson v. Hewlett–Packard Co.

    668 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 824 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a defendant has not made an affirmative misrepresentation, a plaintiff must allege the existence of an unreasonable safety hazard and a causal connection between the defect and the hazard

  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 357,835 times   950 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 162,084 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  13. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 39,880 times   331 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  14. Section 2310 - Remedies in consumer disputes

    15 U.S.C. § 2310   Cited 1,642 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Permitting recovery of "a sum equal to the aggregate amount of cost and expenses (including attorneys’ fees based on actual time expended)"

  15. Section 50-626 - Deceptive acts and practices

    Kan. Stat. § 50-626   Cited 278 times
    Forbidding the "willful use, in any oral or written representation, of exaggeration, falsehood, innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact"

  16. Section 13-80-101 - General limitation of actions - three years

    Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101   Cited 229 times
    Stating that "[a]ll contract actions" must be commenced "within three years after the cause of action accrues, and not thereafter"

  17. Section 672.314 - Implied warranty; merchantability; usage of trade

    Fla. Stat. § 672.314   Cited 100 times
    Stating that the warranty of merchantability "is implied in a contract for [the goods'] sale"

  18. Section 8.2-725 - Statute of limitations in contracts for sale

    Va. Code § 8.2-725   Cited 30 times

    (1) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued. By the original agreement the parties may reduce the period of limitation to not less than one year but may not extend it. (2) A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party's lack of knowledge of the breach. A breach of warranty occurs when tender of delivery is made, except that where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance

  19. Section 6-1-115 - Limitations

    Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-115   Cited 20 times

    All actions brought under this article must be commenced within three years after the date on which the false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice occurred or the date on which the last in a series of such acts or practices occurred or within three years after the consumer discovered or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the occurrence of the false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice. The period of limitation provided in this section may be extended for a period