Legal Opinion
Cullen v. Netflix, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided July 13, 2012No. Case No. 5:11-cv-01199-EJDPublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.
Presently before the court is Defendant Netflix, Inc.’s (“Netflix”) Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) filed by Plaintiff Donald Cullen (“Cullen”), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. See Docket No. 31. Having fully reviewed the moving and responding papers, and the oral arguments of counsel presented at the hearing on January 6, 2012, Netflix’s motion is GRANTED with leave to amend for the reasons described below.
I. FACTUAL AND…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Sprewell v. Golden State WarriorsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Charles H. CAHILL; Aniko Der Cahill, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- NORTH STAR INTERNATIONAL, a Nevada Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Et Al., Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. Cable News Network, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- National Federation of the Blind v. Scribd Inc.District Court, D. Vermont · 2015
- Crandall v. Starbucks Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2017
- Johnson v. GuedoirDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2016
- Allen v. Similasan Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 2015
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.