§Why CasetextPricing

PYE et al v. FIFTH GENERATION INC et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT

17 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. 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

  4. Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling

    516 F.3d 955 (11th Cir. 2008)   Cited 970 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that hiring decisions were "discrete acts of discrimination" that could not go forward under the continuing-violation doctrine

  5. Anderson v. District Board of Trustees of Central Florida Community College

    77 F.3d 364 (11th Cir. 1996)   Cited 936 times
    Holding that plaintiffs are required to "present each claim for relief in a separate count" rather than asserting numerous claims within a single count

  6. Rollins v. Butland

    951 So. 2d 860 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 551 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a private individual seeking a consumer claim for damages under FDUTPA has to prove actual damages

  7. Fitzpatrick, v. General Mills, Inc.

    635 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2011)   Cited 84 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when reliance is not required, "a plaintiff must simply prove that an objective reasonable person would have been deceived"

  8. Jovine v. Abbott Laboratories Inc. D/B/A Abbott Sales

    795 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (S.D. Fla. 2011)   Cited 60 times
    Determining that a FDUTPA action focuses on "whether the practice was likely to deceive a consumer acting reasonably in the same circumstances."

  9. Third Party Verification, Inc. v. Signaturelink, Inc.

    492 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (M.D. Fla. 2007)   Cited 60 times
    Holding that Rule 9's level of pleading is not required for false-marking claims

  10. Fitzpatrick v. General Mills, Inc.

    263 F.R.D. 687 (S.D. Fla. 2010)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that “General Mills' other objection, that Yo–Plus might have worked for some consumers, does not preclude a finding of predominance; that question is largely encompassed by the predominant—and, according to Plaintiff, binary—issue of whether science supports General Mills' claim that Yo–Plus aids in the promotion of digestive health”

  11. 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. . . ."

  12. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

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

  13. Section 501.212 - Application

    Fla. Stat. § 501.212   Cited 163 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Disallowing " claim for personal injury or death or a claim to property other than the property that is the subject of the consumer transaction."

  14. Section 205 - Unfair competition and unlawful practices

    27 U.S.C. § 205   Cited 120 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting exclusivity agreements between wholesalers and retailers

  15. Section 531 - Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

    6 U.S.C. § 531   Cited 5 times

    (a), (b) Transferred (c) Transfer of authorities, functions, personnel, and assets to the Department of Justice (1) Transferred (2) Administration and revenue collection functions There shall be retained within the Department of the Treasury the authorities, functions, personnel, and assets of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms relating to the administration and enforcement of chapters 51 and 52 of title 26, sections 4181 and 4182 of title 26, and title 27. (3) Transferred (d) Tax and Trade

  16. Section 5.22 - Rules regarding certificates of label approval (COLAs) for distilled spirits bottled in the United States

    27 C.F.R. § 5.22   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a)What a COLA authorizes. An approved TTB Form 5100.31 authorizes the bottling of distilled spirits covered by the certificate of label approval (COLA), as long as the container bears labels identical to the labels appearing on the face of the COLA, or labels with changes authorized by TTB on the COLA or otherwise (such as through the issuance of public guidance available on the TTB website at https://www.ttb.gov). ). (b)When to obtain a COLA. The COLA must be obtained prior to bottling. No bottler