Legal Opinion
Degelmann v. Advanced Medical Optics, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided September 28, 2011No. 10-15222PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
NOONAN, Circuit Judge:
Alexis Degelmann and Joseph Lin (“Degelmann and Lin”) represent a putative class (“the class”) of purchasers of contact lens solution. They appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment for the defendant, Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. (“AMO”). They brought suit alleging AMO violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 et seq., and False Advertising Law (“FAL”), id. at § 17500 et seq., by marketing Complete MoisturePlus (“MoisturePlus”) as a product that cleans and disinfects lenses. The district court ruled that…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Dandridge v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Hughes v. Ester C Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 2013
- Jones v. Conagra Foods, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2012
- Rosales v. FitFlop USA, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2012
- Mirko Carrea v. Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Cardenas v. NBTY, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2012
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.