Ary v. Target Corporation
District Court, N.D. California
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SHEJUANA ARY, Case No. 22-cv-02625-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS AND STRIKE 10 TARGET CORPORATION, Re: Dkt. No. 21 11 Defendant. 12 13 Before the Court is Defendant Target Corporation’s motion to dismiss and to strike. Dkt. 14 No. 21 (“Mot.”). The Court found this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument 15 and the matter was deemed submitted. See Dkt. No. 34; Civil L.R. 7-1(b). The Court GRANTS 16 IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion. 17 I.…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Sprewell v. Golden State WarriorsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.