Bureerong

Bureerong v. Uvawas

Good Law

959 F. Supp. 1231·1997 WL 131964·1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3361

United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMarch 3, 1997CV 95-5958 ABC (BQRx)California4,122 words

Opinion

Collins, J.

ORDER RE: Defendant Hub Distributing, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss

Defendant Hub Distributing, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss certain claims in Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint came on regularly for hearing before this Court on March 3, 1997. After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties, argument of counsel, and the case file, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. Procedural Background

On November 25, 1996, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) in this action. The TAC incorporated allegations against several Defendants, including HUB DISTRIBUTING, INC. (“Hub”). The TAC alleged nineteen separate claims for relief, including: (a) manufacture of garments by industrial homework (“Fourth Claim”); (b) contracting with unregistered contractor (“Fifth Claim”); (c) false imprisonment (“Ninth Claim”); (d) invasion of privacy (“Tenth Claim”); and (e) negligent sale of tainted goods for profit (“Nineteenth Claim”).

On January 13, 1997, Hub filed the instant Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Hub argues that Plaintiffs’ Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and…

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.