Legal Opinion
Luxul Technology Inc. v. Nectarlux, LLC
District Court, N.D. California
Decided January 26, 2015No. Case No. 14-CV-03656-LHKPublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 21
LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge
Plaintiff Luxul Technology Inc. (“Plaintiff’ or “Luxul”) brings this action against Defendants Nectarlux, LLC, JKeeney Consulting, Inc., and James Keeney (collectively, “Defendants”). Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. ECF No. 21. Plaintiff filed an opposition. ECF No. 22. Defendants filed a reply. ECF No. 23. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the record in this case, and the relevant law, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby grants in part…
2Cases cited70 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Alterg, Inc. v. Boost Treadmills LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2019
- Bobbleheads.com, LLC v. Wright Bros., Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2017
- Obesity Research Institute, LLC v. Fiber Research International, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2016
- Obesity Research Inst., LLC v. Fiber Research Int'l, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2018
- Adobe Systems Inc. v. A & S Electronics, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2015
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.