Legal Opinion

Kerrigan v. Visalus, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Michigan

Decided June 12, 2015No. Case No. 14-cv-12693PublishedCited by 44 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS (ECF ##35-37) AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, District Judge.

In 2012 or 2013, Plaintiffs Timothy Ker-rigan, Lori Mikovich, and Ryan M. Valli (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) each paid money to Defendant ViSalus, Inc. (“ViSalus”) for the opportunity to sell ViSalus’ weight-loss products. Plaintiffs now allege that they lost the money that they paid to ViSalus. Plaintiffs claim that ViSalus operates a pyramid scheme..In this action, Plaintiffs assert claims against ViSalus…

2Cases cited76 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
  5. Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1992

71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by44 opinions

  1. In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Mktg.District Court, N.D. California · 2018
  2. Duramax Diesel Litig. Andrei Fenner v. Gen. Motors, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2018
  3. Juan Torres v. S.G.E. Management, L.L.C., eCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2016
  4. Corporate Auto Resource Specialist, LTD v. Suburban Motors Company, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2019
  5. Dhadphale v. DelaneyDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2020

39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API