Legal Opinion

Dolphin Kickboxing Co. v. Franchoice, Inc.

District Court, D. Minnesota

Decided May 6, 2020No. 0:19-cv-01477Unknown

1Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA DOLPHIN KICKBOXING CO. and Case No. 19-cv-1477 (MJD/ECW) ROGER GOULD, Plaintiffs, v. ORDER FRANCHOICE, INC. and TANA HUTCHINSON, Defendants. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint (Dkt. 31) (“Motion”). For the reasons stated below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The “Facts” section of the proposed amended complaint is exactly the same as found in the original Complaint. (Compare Dkt. 33-2 ¶¶ 10-26, with Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 10-26.) For the sake of brevity, the…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  4. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
  5. Marks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API