Legal Opinion

Quan v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided September 20, 2005No. 04-55481; D.C. No. CV-03-00744-JSR/BLMPublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Lee v. City Of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
  2. Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Lawrence Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, an Illinois Corporation David's Restaurant SupplyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
  4. Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
  5. 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

  1. Magana v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2021
  2. Mayssami Diamond, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2021
  3. Openiano v. Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2019
  4. Park 101 LLC v. Liberty Mutual Group Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2021
  5. Rose McGowan v. Harvey WeinsteinDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2020

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API