Kerrigan v. Visalus, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Michigan
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
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- 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
- In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Mktg.District Court, N.D. California · 2018
- Duramax Diesel Litig. Andrei Fenner v. Gen. Motors, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2018
- Juan Torres v. S.G.E. Management, L.L.C., eCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2016
- Corporate Auto Resource Specialist, LTD v. Suburban Motors Company, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2019
- Dhadphale v. DelaneyDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2020
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.