65 Cited authorities

Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA
568 U.S. 398 (2013) Cited 3,378 times 169 Legal Analyses
Holding no standing existed where alleged injury was "based on hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending."
Starr v. Baca
652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 5,607 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
Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.
316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 5,140 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court abused its discretion because "[d]ismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment"
Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court
51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) Cited 1,618 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding "the standards for establishing standing under section 17204 and eligibility for restitution under section 17203 are wholly distinct"
Wilson v. Hewlett–Packard Co.
668 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) Cited 844 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
Wyler Summit v. Turner Broadcasting Sys
135 F.3d 658 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 1,268 times
Denying motion to dismiss contract claim
Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co.
451 Mass. 623 (Mass. 2008) Cited 841 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions"
Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp.
34 Cal.4th 979 (Cal. 2004) Cited 774 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding the "narrow" exception to the economic loss rule is "limited to a defendant's affirmative misrepresentations on which a plaintiff relies and which expose a plaintiff to liability for personal damages."
Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
144 Cal.App.4th 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 587 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiff failed to plead a fraudulent omission where "no representation was made to which the alleged concealment was contrary"
LiMandri v. Judkins
52 Cal.App.4th 326 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 525 times
Holding that nondisclosure may constitute fraud "when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff"
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 94,896 times 92 Legal Analyses
Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint
Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 Cited 40,154 times 335 Legal Analyses
Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

Richard Draeger et al v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.

65 Cited authorities

Holding no standing existed where alleged injury was "based on hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending."

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

Holding that the district court abused its discretion because "[d]ismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment"

Holding "the standards for establishing standing under section 17204 and eligibility for restitution under section 17203 are wholly distinct"

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

Denying motion to dismiss contract claim

Holding that "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions"

Holding the "narrow" exception to the economic loss rule is "limited to a defendant's affirmative misrepresentations on which a plaintiff relies and which expose a plaintiff to liability for personal damages."

Holding plaintiff failed to plead a fraudulent omission where "no representation was made to which the alleged concealment was contrary"

Holding that nondisclosure may constitute fraud "when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff"

Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity