Legal Opinion
Maniscalco v. Brother International Corp.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided June 19, 2009No. Civil Action 3:06-CV-04907(FLW)PublishedCited by 71 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WOLFSON, District Judge:
Plaintiffs Mark Maniscalco (“Maniscalco”) and Walter Huryk (“Huryk”) (“Plaintiffs”), individually, and on behalf of a putative class of consumers, bring various claims relating to Plaintiffs’ purchases of Defendant Brother International Corporation’s (“BIC” or “Defendant”) Multi-Function Center line of all-in-one devices (“MFC machines”). Presently before the Court is BIC’s second motion to dismiss Counts I, II, and III of the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), insofar as they are predicated on the alleged “Machine Error 41” (“ME41”) defect. Specifically, Count I…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Phillips v. County of AlleghenyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008
- Quackenbush v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Frederico v. Home DepotCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by71 opinions
- Snyder v. FARNAM COMPANIES, INC.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2011
- In re Porsche Cars North America, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2012
- ARLANDSON v. Hartz Mountain Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2011
- Mickens v. Ford Motor Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2012
- Stockroom, Inc. v. Dydacomp Development Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2013
66 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.