Rittenhouse

Rittenhouse v. BlendJet, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 16, 20252:23-cv-01906California2,839 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ----oo0oo---- 11 GREGORY RITTENHOUSE, and LINDA No. 2:23-cv-01906 WBS DB GAGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT BLENDJET, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS v. 16 BLENDJET, INC., and RYAN PAMPLIN, Defendants. 19 ----oo0oo---- Plaintiffs Gregory Rittenhouse (“Rittenhouse”) and Linda Gage (“Gage”) brought this action against BlendJet, Inc., (“defendant” or “BlendJet”) and its CEO Ryan Pamplin (“Pamplin”) seeking legal and equitable relief for breach of contract, violations of New York General Business Law sections 349-50, violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, violations of various other state consumer protection statutes, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent omission, negligent omission, and quasi-contract. …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.