§Why CasetextPricing

Valcor Engineering Corporation v. Parker Hannifin Corporation

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss

21 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 252,544 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 266,461 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. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty.

    693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 7,643 times
    Holding that "claims [that are] voluntarily dismissed" are "waived if not repled" in an amended complaint"

  4. Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    572 F.3d 677 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 3,142 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that plaintiffs' general statement that defendant exercised control over their daily employment to be conclusory and affirming dismissal

  5. Soule v. General Motors Corp.

    8 Cal.4th 548 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 1,248 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the consumer expectations test was not appropriate for a claim that a car was defective because the wheel assembly detached in accident

  6. Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp.

    34 Cal.4th 979 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 745 times   3 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."

  7. Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc.

    222 Cal.App.3d 1371 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 925 times
    Holding that a claim for breach of the implied covenant may be disregarded if it rests on the same set of facts as a claim for breach of contract

  8. LiMandri v. Judkins

    52 Cal.App.4th 326 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 496 times
    Holding that nondisclosure may constitute fraud "when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff"

  9. Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc.

    198 Cal.App.4th 230 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 168 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that allegation of intent to defraud element of fraud claim was adequately supported by allegations tending to show a "nefarious scheme to deceive consumers"

  10. Umg Recordings, Inc. v. Global Eagle Entm't, Inc.

    117 F. Supp. 3d 1092 (C.D. Cal. 2015)   Cited 92 times
    Holding that "a plaintiff must allege: ' a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party; defendant's knowledge of this contract; defendant's intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and resulting damage.'".