§Why CasetextPricing

Schilling et al v. Jpmorgan Chase & Co. et al

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

41 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 253,484 times   279 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 267,331 times   365 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

  3. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.

    552 U.S. 312 (2008)   Cited 1,032 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a State’s “‘requirements’” “includ[e] [the state’s] common-law duties”

  4. Knievel v. ESPN

    393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 2,318 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that incorporation by reference doctrine extends “to situations in which the plaintiff's claim depends on the contents of a document, the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss, and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document, even though the plaintiff does not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint”

  5. Harris v. Cnty. of Orange

    682 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 1,183 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court "may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record . . . including documents on file in federal or state courts"

  6. Ileto v. Glock Inc.

    349 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 1,303 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding gun manufacturers liable because they were "in the best position to protect against the risk of harm" caused by the purchase of illegal guns from all of the different sellers to whom they distributed

  7. Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network

    18 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 1,852 times
    Holding that a national organization was not sufficiently connected to a "place" open to the public

  8. Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, Llp

    584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 885 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a consumer has a private right of action against a furnisher of credit information for willful or negligent noncompliance with the requirements in 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)

  9. Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc.

    143 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,047 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”

  10. Hangman Ridge v. Safeco Title

    105 Wn. 2d 778 (Wash. 1986)   Cited 1,232 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff must demonstrate the alleged injuries were caused by the deceptive acts of the defendant to make out a claim under the WCPA

  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 346,675 times   923 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Section 1681s-2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies

    15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2   Cited 2,874 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Granting enforcement power to state and federal regulators

  13. Section 1681t - Relation to State laws

    15 U.S.C. § 1681t   Cited 649 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Preempting state-law claims "relating to the responsibilities of persons who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies"

  14. Section 19.86.093 - Civil action-Unfair or deceptive act or practice-Claim elements

    Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.093   Cited 84 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In RCW 19.86.093, the Washington legislature set forth three ways that a private plaintiff can prove the public interest factor of a CPA claim: (1) show that the allegedly illegal conduct violates a statute incorporating the CPA; (2) show that the illegal conduct violates a statute that contains a specific legislative declaration of public interest impact; or (3) show that the conduct (a) injured other persons, (b) had the capacity to injure other persons, or (c) has the capacity to injure other persons.

  15. Section 19.36.110 - Enforceability of credit agreements-Effect of oral agreements and partial performance

    Wash. Rev. Code § 19.36.110   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Specifying that a credit agreement “is not enforceable against the creditor unless the agreement is in writing and signed by the creditor.”