65 Cited authorities

  1. Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA

    568 U.S. 398 (2013)   Cited 3,303 times   169 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in the absence of some independent existing or impending harm, plaintiffs "cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves"
  2. Starr v. Baca

    652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 5,504 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
  3. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.

    316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 5,072 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"
  4. Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court

    51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 1,604 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the standards for establishing standing under section 17204 and eligibility for restitution under section 17203 are wholly distinct"
  5. Wilson v. Hewlett–Packard Co.

    668 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 825 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
  6. Wyler Summit v. Turner Broadcasting Sys

    135 F.3d 658 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,255 times
    Denying motion to dismiss contract claim
  7. Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co.

    451 Mass. 623 (Mass. 2008)   Cited 839 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"
  8. Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp.

    34 Cal.4th 979 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 768 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."
  9. Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

    144 Cal.App.4th 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 577 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff failed to plead a fraudulent omission where "no representation was made to which the alleged concealment was contrary"
  10. LiMandri v. Judkins

    52 Cal.App.4th 326 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 515 times
    Holding that nondisclosure may constitute fraud "when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff"
  11. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 93,886 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
  12. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 39,914 times   333 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity