Legal Opinion
Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 8, 2009No. 07-55835PublishedCited by 1,046 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge:
William Kearns’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) claimed violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ.Code §§ 1750-1784, and California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code §§ 17200-17210. Those state claims are subject to Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 9(b)”) which requires that allegations of fraud be pleaded with particularity. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). Because we find that Kearns’s claims were all grounded in fraud, his failure to plead the TAC with particularity merited its dismissal, and we…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Hanna v. PlumerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USACourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- In Re Glenfed, Inc. Securities LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1997
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1,046 opinions
- Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- Gary Davis v. Hsbc Bank Nevada, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Destfino v. ReiswigCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
1,041 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.