Legal Opinion
Mai v. Supercell Oy
District Court, N.D. California
Decided January 3, 2023No. 5:20-cv-05573Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 PETER MAI, et al., Case No. 20-cv-05573-EJD 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED 10 v. COMPLAINT 11 SUPERCELL OY, Re: ECF No. 52 Defendant. 12 13 Before the Court is Defendant Supercell Oy’s (“Supercell”) Motion to Dismiss First 14 Amended Complaint (“FAC”). See Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 52 15 (“Motion”). The Court finds the Motion appropriate for decision without oral argument pursuant 16 to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). ECF No. 60. For the reasons…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Eminence Capital, Llc, and Jay Spechler v. Aspeon, Inc. Richard P. StackCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.