§Why CasetextPricing

Phelan v. Lifeway Foods, Inc.

REPLY

18 Cited authorities

  1. Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co.

    666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 1,002 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding a class definition as fatally overbroad where many class members learned that the advertising was misleading before purchase

  2. Rose v. Bartle

    871 F.2d 331 (3d Cir. 1989)   Cited 1,327 times
    Holding that prosecutors' solicitation and preparation of perjured testimony was entitled to immunity because these actions "occurred in preparation for the grand jury proceedings, not in an investigatory capacity"

  3. Sanders v. Apple Inc.

    672 F. Supp. 2d 978 (N.D. Cal. 2009)   Cited 178 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting motion to strike with leave to amend to define a narrower class

  4. Norwest Mortgage, Inc. v. Superior Court

    72 Cal.App.4th 214 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 168 times
    Holding § 17200 "was not intended to regulate conduct unconnected to California"

  5. National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. v. King Bio Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    107 Cal.App.4th 1336 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 122 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that private plaintiffs may seek relief only from false or misleading statements

  6. Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp.

    185 Cal.App.3d 135 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 166 times
    Holding that to state a prima facie case for breach of express warranty a plaintiff must allege that the breach of warranty proximately caused an injury

  7. Bruno v. Quten Research Inst., LLC

    280 F.R.D. 524 (C.D. Cal. 2011)   Cited 77 times
    Holding that "individual experience with a product is irrelevant" because "the injury under the [Unfair Competition Law], [False Advertising Law,] and [Consumer Legal Remedies Act] is established by an objective test. Specifically, this objective test states that injury is shown where the consumer has purchased a product that is marketed with a material misrepresentation, that is, in a manner such that 'members of the public are likely to be deceived'"

  8. Demarco v. Depotech Corp.

    149 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (S.D. Cal. 2001)   Cited 81 times
    Holding if the statement is not false, "scienter entails the illogical inquiry into whether the defendant intended to deceive when, in fact, there was no deception"

  9. Carrea v. Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc.

    No. C 10-01044 JSW (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011)   Cited 56 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiff did not have standing to pursue UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims as to products he never purchased

  10. Clothesrigger, Inc. v. GTE Corp.

    191 Cal.App.3d 605 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 99 times
    Holding trial court erred in denying motion to certify nationwide class without conducting choice of law analysis, where "alleged fraudulent misrepresentations forming the basis of the claim of every [class member] emanated from California"; observing that "California's more favorable laws may properly apply to benefit nonresident plaintiffs when their home states have no identifiable interest in denying such persons full recovery"

  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 361,853 times   961 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 164,069 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."