Parino v. Bidrack, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND VACATING HEARING
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
INTRODUCTION
In this purported class action for fraudulent and deceptive advertising, defendant BidRack, Inc. moves to dismiss the action pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated below, the motion is Granted in Part and Denied in Part.
STATEMENT
The operative complaint alleges the following facts. Defendant BidRack, Inc., owns and operates www.bidrack.com, an online “penny auction” site where bidders purchase and place bids in hopes of winning auctions for valuable…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Jena Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department Al Olsen, Police Chief, Individually and as a Police AgentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USACourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Williams v. Gerber Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Oasis West Realty v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Hughes v. Ester C Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 2013
- Rockridge Trust v. Wells Fargo, N.A.District Court, N.D. California · 2013
- Mazzola v. Roomster Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2012
- Rodman v. Safeway Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2015
- Riva v. Pepsico, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2015
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.