Legal Opinion
Federal Express Corp. v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Tennessee
Decided September 22, 2010No. 09-2269 Ma/PPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
TU M. PHAM, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.’s (“UPS”) Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. (D.E. 29.) Plaintiff Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx”) filed a response in opposition, and UPS filed a reply. For the reasons below, UPS’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 1
I. BACKGROUND
FedEx is in the business of providing door-to-door delivery of documents, packages, and freight, and providing related support services throughout the United…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer Pharmaceuticals Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002
- United States v. Community Health Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
- United Industries Corp. v. Clorox Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Reed Construction Data Inc. v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2014
- Heartland of Urbana OH, L.L.C. v. McHugh Fuller Law Group, P.L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2016
- Service Jewelry Repair, Inc. v. Cumulus Broadcasting, LLCDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2015
- Asurion, LLC v. SquareTrade, Inc.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2019
- CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2019
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.