Jeanine Randall, individually and as successor in interest to Sonia Huey v. Home Depot, et al.
District Court, E.D. California
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEANINE RANDALL, individually and as No. 2:23-cv-00476-DJC-CSK successor in interest to SONIA HUEY, 12 13 Plaintiff, ORDER 14 v. 15 HOME DEPOT, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint 20 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s 21 claims fail because they are time barred and/or fail to state a claim upon which relief 22 can be granted. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Mendiondo v. Centinela Hospital Medical CenterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Yanowitz v. L'OREAL USA, INC.California Supreme Court · 2005
- Norgart v. Upjohn Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.