Legal Opinion
Brown v. Nano Hearing Tech Opco, LLC
District Court, S.D. California
Decided July 9, 2024No. 3:24-cv-00221Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHANIE BROWN, individually and Case No.: 3:24-cv-00221-BTM-JLB on behalf of others similarly situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT Plaintiff, 13 NANO HEARING AIDS’ MOTION TO v. DISMISS 14 NANO HEARING TECH OPCO, LLC 15 [ECF NO. 6] d/b/a NANO HEARING AIDS, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 Defendant Nano Hearing Tech Opco, LLC doing business as Nano Hearing Aids 21 (“Nano”) has filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 6 (“Def.’s 22 MTD”).) In response, Plaintiff Stephanie Brown (“Brown”) filed an…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Jena Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department Al Olsen, Police Chief, Individually and as a Police AgentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.