Legal Opinion
Falk v. General Motors Corp.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided July 3, 2007No. C 07-01731 WHAPublishedCited by 165 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
ALSUP, District Judge.
INTRODUCTION
In this putative class action against General Motors Corporation, plaintiffs bring suit for defective speedometers in their GM trucks and sports utility vehicles, alleging violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Laws. Plaintiffs also allege damages due to fraud by omission and unjust enrichment. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) is hereby Denied as to the CLRA, UCL and fraud by omission claims and Granted as to the unjust enrichment claim.
STA…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Charles H. CAHILL; Aniko Der Cahill, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Theodore C. Swartz v. Kpmg Llp, and Presidio Advisory Services Inc. Deutsche Bank Ag Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp.California Supreme Court · 2004
- Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by165 opinions
- Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Margie Daniel v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Collins v. eMachines, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011
- In Re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, & Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2010
- Tietsworth v. SearsDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2010
160 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.