Legal Opinion
Tietsworth v. Sears
District Court, N.D. California
Decided March 31, 2010No. 3:09-cr-00288PublishedCited by 89 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER 1 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS
JEREMY FOGEL, District Judge.
Defendants Whirlpool Corporation (“Whirlpool”) and Sears, Roebuck and Co. (“Sears”) move to dismiss and strike class allegations from the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) filed by Plaintiffs Renee Tietsworth (“Tietsworth”), Suzanne Rebro (“Rebro”), Sondra Simpson (“Simpson”), John Carey (“Carey”), and John Engelke (“Engelke”), on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated consumers. For the reasons discussed…
2Cases cited54 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Lewis v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Sprewell v. Golden State WarriorsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by89 opinions
- Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Weisblum v. Prophase Labs, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2015
- In re Carrier IQ, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2015
- Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2010
- Cholakyan v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLCDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2011
84 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.