§Why CasetextPricing

Paul Wall v. Davol, Inc. et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case as to the First Amended Complaint

38 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 262,920 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 276,185 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. Starr v. Baca

    652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 5,484 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a series of investigative reports documenting systemic deficiencies in a jail put the defendant-supervisor on notice of the risk of the harm that befell the plaintiff

  4. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee

    531 U.S. 341 (2001)   Cited 1,206 times   82 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal drug and medical device laws pre-empted a state tort-law claim based on failure to properly communicate with the FDA

  5. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors

    266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 5,216 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss

  6. Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co.

    618 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 1,367 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) is the appropriate means of disposing of an improper claim for relief

  7. Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.

    26 Cal.4th 465 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,245 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Restating the same criteria for exceptions from the rule set forth in section 1714

  8. Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc.

    143 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,063 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court is “not required to accept as true conclusory allegations which are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint”

  9. Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.

    20 Cal.3d 413 (Cal. 1978)   Cited 596 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that once a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of injury caused by product's design, the burden should shift to the defendant to prove that the product is not defective

  10. Perez v. Nidek Co.

    711 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013)   Cited 187 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because a plaintiff did not intend to have further eye surgery, he did not have standing to pursue injunctive relief under the California CLRA

  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 357,280 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 161,761 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. Section 3294 - When damages recoverable for sake of example and by way of punishment; employer liability for acts of employee; death from homicide

    Cal. Civ. Code § 3294   Cited 2,853 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Stating plaintiff may recover punitive damages "in addition to the actual damages"

  14. Section 337 - Proceedings in name of United States; provision as to subpoenas

    21 U.S.C. § 337   Cited 686 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Restricting FDCA enforcement to suits by the United States

  15. Section 332 - Injunction proceedings

    21 U.S.C. § 332   Cited 272 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Granting the district court jurisdiction to restrain violations of FDCA

  16. Section 372 - Examinations and investigations

    21 U.S.C. § 372   Cited 63 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) Authority to conduct (1) (A) The Secretary is authorized to conduct examinations and investigations for the purposes of this chapter through officers and employees of the Department or through any health, food, or drug officer or employee of any State, Territory, or political subdivision thereof, duly commissioned by the Secretary as an officer of the Department. (B) (i) For a tobacco product, to the extent feasible, the Secretary shall contract with the States in accordance with this paragraph

  17. Section 810.15 - Communications concerning a cease distribution and notification or mandatory recall order

    21 C.F.R. § 810.15   Cited 1 times

    (a)General. The person named in a cease distribution and notification order issued under § 810.10 or a mandatory recall order issued under § 810.13 is responsible for promptly notifying each health professional, device user facility, consignee, or individual, as appropriate, of the order. In accordance with § 810.10(c) or § 810.13(b)(4) , FDA may provide the person named in the cease distribution and notification or mandatory recall order with a model letter for notifying each health professional