Legal Opinion

Lloyd v. Mullenex

District Court, N.D. California

Decided November 6, 2019No. 5:19-cv-03999Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KENNETH LLOYD, Case No. 19-cv-03999-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 12 v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS 13 KEVIN MULLENEX, Re: Dkt. No. 21 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 In this fraud cause, defendant Kevin Mullenex moves to dismiss all claims in plaintiff 18 Kenneth Lloyd’s complaint. Dkt. No. 21. Mullenex argues that Lloyd’s fraud claims are 19 insufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), that some claims are time-barred 20 by the statute of limitations, and that other claims fail under…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Navarro v. BlockCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
  4. In Re Gilead Sciences Securities LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  5. Cafasso v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011

14 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