§Why CasetextPricing

Wimo Labs LLC v. eBay Inc et al

Opposition to re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Fifth Cause of Action of the First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12

46 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 252,626 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 266,542 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. Erickson v. Pardus

    551 U.S. 89 (2007)   Cited 61,623 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests"

  4. Boyle v. United States

    556 U.S. 938 (2009)   Cited 1,134 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a RICO enterprise "need not have a hierarchical structure or a 'chain of command'; decisions may be made on an ad hoc basis and by any number of methods — by majority vote, consensus, a show of strength, etc."

  5. Reves v. Ernst Young

    507 U.S. 170 (1993)   Cited 1,412 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant "participates" if he "directs" the pattern of racketeering activity

  6. Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York

    559 U.S. 1 (2010)   Cited 762 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant retailer's failure to make state-law-required disclosures that would make it easier for the City to recover delinquent taxes did not proximately cause the City's injury, which more directly came from the delinquent taxpayers themselves

  7. Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King

    533 U.S. 158 (2001)   Cited 731 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding person who is a corporate owner or employee is distinct from the corporation itself

  8. In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation

    618 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2010)   Cited 1,460 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that per se "hub and spoke" theory was not properly pled when complaint detailed specific agreements between multiple insurers and a single broker, but did not allege facts such that the court could infer that the insurers had agreed horizontally to enter into their respective agreements with the broker

  9. Schreiber Distributing v. Serv-Well Furniture

    806 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 2,285 times
    Holding that Rule 9(b) requires the plaintiff to "state with particularity" the "circumstances constituting the fraud," including a statement of "the time, place, and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentation."

  10. Newcal Industries, Inc. v. IKON Office Solution

    513 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 850 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff who had already filed a fraud suit under the Sherman Act, Lanham Act, and RICO had standing to seek a declaration that the defendant's fraudulently procured contracts were invalid

  11. Section 1962 - Prohibited activities

    18 U.S.C. § 1962   Cited 15,872 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Specifying prohibited activities

  12. Section 1961 - Definitions

    18 U.S.C. § 1961   Cited 14,950 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include

  13. Section 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television

    18 U.S.C. § 1343   Cited 11,947 times   170 Legal Analyses
    Barring fraudulent schemes "for obtaining money or property"

  14. Section 2320 - Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services

    18 U.S.C. § 2320   Cited 430 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Referencing counterfeiting

  15. Section 2319 - Criminal infringement of a copyright

    18 U.S.C. § 2319   Cited 163 times   7 Legal Analyses

    (a) Any person who violates section 506(a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (d) and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law. (b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506(a)(1)(A) of title 17- (1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic