Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good

49 Citing briefs

  1. Rosen v. Unilever United States, Inc.

    Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint

    Filed February 8, 2010

    Rather, Plaintiff simply is looking for enforcement of the law that prohibits Defendant from making misleading and deceptive statements. See, e.g., Altria, 129 S. Ct. at 545-46. And as the Supreme Court has held: “It it not difficult to choose statements, designs, and devices which will not deceive.”

  2. Asis Internet Services v. Vistaprint USA, Incorporated et al

    Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed March 13, 2009

    Therefore, when the text of a federal statute can be read in more than one plausible way, the courts tend to accept the reading that disfavors preemption. (Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 129 S.Ct. 538 at 543(U.S. 2008); citing Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 at 449 (2005).) Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 15 C-08-5261 SBA Case4:08-cv-05261-SBA Document21 Filed03/13/09 Page19 of 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In its subsequent decision after allowing a first amended complaint, the Hoang II Court restated the earlier decision basing the requirement of common law fraud on the requirement for a showing of harm under Article III standing as stated in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 at 560 (1992) (requiring a showing of actual harm).

  3. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund et al v. Standard & Poor's Financial Services, LLC et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss 2 the Complaint

    Filed March 22, 2010

    Moreover, that “the ‘relating to’ language of the MDA’s pre-emption provision is . . . much broader than the operative language” of CRARA further renders Riegel inapposite. Altria Group, 129 S. Ct. at 549.

  4. GARCIA (SERGIO C.) ON ADMISSION

    Applicant’s Consolidated Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

    Filed September 14, 2012

    American Trucking Assns., Inc. (2001) 531 U.S. 457, 468, 121 S.Ct. 903, 149 L.Ed.2d 1. Never before in this Country’s history has Congress expressed an intent to regulate the states’ admission of attorneys. Nowhere in the federal immigration law does Congressstate that it is preempting licensing of lawyers, a powerthat states have always exercised and one that Congress has never exercised. Courts ordinarily accept the reading of a statute that disfavors pre-emption. Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC (2005) 544 U.S. 431, 449, 125 S.Ct. 1788, 161 L.Ed.2d 687; Altria Group,Inc.v. Good(2008) 555 U.S. 70, 77, 129 S. Ct. 538, 543, 172 L. Ed. 2d 398. II. CONGRESS CANNOT DEPRIVE STATE COURTS OF THEIR POWERTO RULEON JUSTICIABLE ISSUES IlI-A. Summary According to the USA Briefat page 11, this Court cannot grant a law license to Sergio Garcia due to USA v Bean (2001) 537 US71, 74-75.

  5. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.

    MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

    Filed March 9, 2015

    The courts would overflow with plaintiffs bringing UCL claims challenging all manner of prices. Accord, e.g., Linkline, 555 U.S. at 452 (“Courts are ill suited ‘to act as central planners, identifying the proper price, quantity, and other terms of dealing.’”).

  6. The People of the State of New York by Andrew M. Cuomo,, Respondent,v.Maurice R. Greenberg, et al., Appellants.

    Brief

    Filed May 28, 2013

    And it is well settled that the presence of “an express pre- emption provision” in a federal statute does not “‘bar the ordinary working of con- flict pre-emption principles’” with respect to that statute. Buckman Co. v. Plain- tiffs’ Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 352 (2001) (alteration omitted) (quoting Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 869 (2000)); see also Island Park, 559 F.3d at 101 (“[T]he presence of an express pre-emption clause in a federal statute ‘does not immediately end the inquiry because the question of the substance and scope of Congress’ displacement of state law still remains.’”) (quoting Altria Group, 555 U.S. at 76). Here, those principles require dismissing the suit.

  7. ROSE v. BANK OF AMERICA (Mauro, J., assigned justice pro tempore; Chin, J., not participating)

    Appellants’ Reply to Answer to Petition for Review

    Filed January 31, 2012

    ) Indeed, the presumption against preemptionis sufficiently powerful to impose upon courts a “duty to accept the reading that disfavors pre-emption” as among equally plausible interpretations of an express preemption clause. (Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC (2005) 544 U.S. 431, 449 [161 L. Ed. 2d 687, 125 S. Ct. 1788]; see also Altria Group, Inc. v. Good (2008) 555 U.S. 70, __ [172 L.Ed.2d 398, 129 S. Ct. 538, 543] [“[W]hen the text of a pre-emption clause is susceptible of more than one plausible reading, courts ordinarily ‘accept the reading that disfavors pre- emption.’”].) Jd. at 1064.

  8. IN RE: Trasylol Products Liability Litigation

    REPLY to Response to Motion re

    Filed February 24, 2010

    In that case, the Supreme Court held that plaintiff’s claim for violations of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act (“MUTPA”) was not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (“FCLAA”) or the longstanding policy of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) regarding “light” cigarettes. 129 S. Ct. at 551. As in Levine, the plaintiffs in Good did not allege that defendants had committed fraud on the FTC itself; rather, the plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the MUTPA by misleading the public about the health effects of light cigarettes through Case 9:08-cv-80868-DMM Document 150 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2010 Page 8 of 16 9 their advertisements.

  9. Rosen v. Unilever United States, Inc.

    RESPONSE in Support re MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint

    Filed February 12, 2010

    Altria involved a different preemption statute, not the NLEA (as here) but the differently worded Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1334(b), which was held in Altria Group not to preempt a claim brought under Maine’s consumer protection act. Altria Group, Inc., 129 S. Ct. at 543, 551. 2 Plaintiff relies on Jackson v. Balanced Health Products, Inc., No.

  10. Asis Internet Services v. Vistaprint USA, Incorporated et al

    Reply to Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed April 7, 2009

    As California did not adopt its electronic mail statute until 2003, the regulation of electronic mail can hardly be characterized as one of “the historic police powers of the States.” Altria Group, 129 S. Ct. at 543. Case4:08-cv-05261-SBA Document25 Filed04/07/09 Page11 of 19 COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN D IEGO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8. VISTAPRINT USA’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO VISTAPRINT USA’S MTD 08-CV-5261-SBA taken to its logical conclusion, would encourage divergent standards for regulating commercial email.