Legal Opinion
Leyman v. The Kroger Co.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided July 22, 2025No. 3:24-cv-01001Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUCHELLE LEYMAN, and MIGUEL Case No. 3:24-cv-01001-L-VET HERNANDEZ, individually and on 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO behalf of all others similarly situated, DISMISS 13 Plaintiffs, 14 [ECF No. 13] v. 15 THE KROGER CO., 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is Defendant The Kroger Co.’s (“Kroger” or 20 “Defendant”) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiffs 21 Rauchelle Leyman and Miguel Hernandez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an opposition, 22 and Defendant filed a…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Navarro v. BlockCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Charles H. CAHILL; Aniko Der Cahill, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.