Legal Opinion
Wilson v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided October 24, 2013No. Case No. 12-1586 SCPublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
SAMUEL CONTI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
Now before the Court is Defendant Fri-to-Lay North America, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Markus Wilson and Doug Campen’s (“Plaintiffs”) second amended complaint. ECF Nos. 47 (“SAC”), 59 (“MTD”). The motion is fully briefed, ECF Nos. 64 (“Opp’n”), 68 (“Reply”), and suitable for decision without oral argument, Civ. L.R. 7 — 1(b). For the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Lopez v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Auer v. RobbinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Navarro v. BlockCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Cafasso v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2017
- Six Dimensions, Incorporated v. Perficient, IncorpCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2020
- In re NJOY, Inc. Consumer Class Action LitigationDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2015
- Figy v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2014
- Kane v. Chobani, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2014
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.