Legal Opinion
Figy v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided August 12, 2014No. Case No. 13-3988 SCPublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
SAMUEL CONTI, United States District Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
Now before the Court is Defendant Frito-Lay North America, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Robert Figy and Mary Swearingen’s (“Plaintiffs”) first amended complaint. ECF Nos.. 17 (“FAC”), 25 (“MTD”). The motion is fully briefed, ECF Nos. 31 (“Opp’n”),1 34 (“Reply”), and suitable for decision without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7 — 1(b). For the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part…
2Cases cited39 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
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Six Dimensions, Incorporated v. Perficient, IncorpCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2020
- In re Hardieplank Fiber Cement Siding Litig.District Court, D. Maine · 2018
- Lengen v. General Mills, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2016
- Anderson v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2015
- Gedalia v. Whole Foods Market Services, Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2014
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.