Swain

Swain v. CACH, LLC

Good Law

699 F. Supp. 2d 1109·2009 WL 6305286·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126340

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 4, 2009C 08-05562 JWCalifornia3,257 words

Opinion

Ware, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS; DENYING MOTION TO STAY

Presently before the Court are Defendants Hollins Schectér (“HS”) and Rudy Gaba, Jr.’s (“Gaba”) Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, Defendants CACH, LLC (“CACH”) and Vanessa Martinez’s (“Martinez”) Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, and Defendants CACH and Martinez’s Motion to Stay. The Court finds it appropriate to take the Motions under submission without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-í(b). Based on the papers submitted to date, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and DENIES Defendants CACH and Martinez’s Motion to Stay.

A. Background

A detailed outline of the factual allegations in this case may be found in the Court’s July 16, 2009 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Motion to Strike. 699 F.Supp.2d 1117 , 2009 WL 6325530 (N.D.Cal.2009) (hereafter, “Order,” Docket Item No. 23.) The Court reviews the relevant procedural history to the extent it implicates the present Motion.

In its July 16 Order, the Court examined the issue of whether standing under the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) carries a requirement that…

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.