Legal Opinion

Hyundai America, Inc. v. Meissner & Wurst GmbH & Co.

District Court, N.D. California

Decided November 6, 1998No. C-98-20835 JF (EAI)PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

FOGEL, District Judge.

Respondents Meissner & Wurst GmbH & Co.—U.S. Operations, Inc., and Meissner + Wurst, U.S. Operations, Inc.’s (collectively “M+W” or “Respondents”) motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment came before the Court on October 13, 1998. The Court took the motion under submission for decision on the basis of the papers filed by the parties pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-l(b). The Court has read the moving and responding papers and considered the applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. Howard Wool v. Tandem Computers Incorporated, Robert C. Marshall, Henry v. Morgan, and James G. TreybigCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
  5. Robert S. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Parker v. McCawCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  2. Turner Const. v. Central Fl. Equip. RentalDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
  3. Adkins v. HetmerDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2021
  4. Antonio v. ThornellDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2025
  5. Crouch 321149 v. ThornellDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2024

7 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