Legal Opinion
Pirozzi v. Apple, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided August 5, 2013No. 12-cv-01529-JSTPublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Re: ECF No. 38
JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge
Before the Court is Defendant Apple, Ine.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Mot., ECF No. 38. The Court previously dismissed Plaintiffs *914First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. ECF No. 28; Pirozzi v. Apple, Inc., 913 F.Supp.2d 840 (N.D.Cal.2012) (“Pirozzi I”). The Court will deny Apple’s motion on all grounds except with respect to Plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim, which the Court will dismiss.
I. BACKGROUND
A.…
2Cases cited38 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
- Starr v. BacaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Security Breach LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2014
- Ehret v. Uber Technologies, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2014
- Stewart v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2018
- Opperman v. Path, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2014
- In re Riddell Concussion Reduction LitigationDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2015
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.