Legal Opinion
U1IT4LESS, Inc. v. FedEx Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided September 25, 2012No. 11-CV-7163 (CS)PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
SEIBEL, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6), (Doc. 42). For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I. Background
For purposes of Defendants’ Motion, I accept as true the facts (but not the conclusions) as stated in the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Plaintiff is an internet retailer that sells motorcycle gear such as helmets, boots, goggles, chaps, jackets, and vests, shipping within the United States and internationally. (SAC ¶ 21.)…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- 4 K & D Corp. v. Concierge Auctions, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2014
- U1IT4Less, Inc. v. FedEx Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2017
- Kerik v. TacopinaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2014
- City of New York v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2015
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai v. Health Care Service Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2017
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.