Legal Opinion
Gross v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided February 11, 1997No. 96 Civ. 4921 (RWS). MDL-1154PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
Defendant New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc. (“New Balance”) has moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ antitrust class action lawsuit and certain pendent state law claims.
For the reasons set forth below, New Balance’s motion will be granted.
Parties
Defendant New Balance is an athletic shoe manufacturer.
Plaintiffs Ellen M. Sullivan (“Sullivan”) and Mark Gross (“Gross”) are individuals residing in New York, New York.
Background
For purposes of the instant motion to dismiss, the allegations of the complaint are taken as true. The facts are presented below accordingly, and do not…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Knevelbaard Dairies v. Kraft Foods, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- In Re Playmobil Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1998
- Federal Trade Commission v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 1999
- In Re Nine West Shoes Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- In re Commodity Exchange, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2016
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.