Rosales v. FitFlop USA, LLC
District Court, S.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STRIKE [DOC. 14]
THOMAS J. WHELAN, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant FitFlop USA’s (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Alternatively, Defendant moves to strike Plaintiffs’ class allegations. Plaintiffs oppose. The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L. R. 7.1(d.l). For the reasons addressed below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion.
I. Background
Defendant manufactures,…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Hal Roach Studios, Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Richard Feiner and Company, Inc., a New York CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Cafasso v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Dino Rikos v. The Procter & Gamble Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2015
- In re Conagra Foods, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2015
- In re Nexus 6P Prods. Liab. Litig.District Court, N.D. California · 2018
- Beck v. FCA US LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2017
- McCabe v. Daimler AGDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 2013
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.