Quan v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM**
Plaintiff Steve Quan appeals from the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his claims for fraud, declaratory relief, and invasion of privacy.
1. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Decker v. Advantage Fund Ltd., 362 F.3d 593, 595-96 (9th Cir.2004). Insofar as the complaint alleges that Defendant’s agents lied when they told Plaintiff that he had to fill out a medical form, the claim for fraud fails because— as the complaint elsewhere admits — Defendant in fact did require Plaintiff to fill out the form. That is, Defendant’s alleged…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Lee v. City Of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2005
- Lawrence Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, an Illinois Corporation David's Restaurant SupplyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Decker v. Advantage Fund Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Magana v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2021
- Mayssami Diamond, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2021
- Openiano v. Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2019
- Park 101 LLC v. Liberty Mutual Group Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2021
- Rose McGowan v. Harvey WeinsteinDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2020
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.