Bruggeman

Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., LTD. v. Bruggeman

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 2, 20223:21-cv-08489California3,404 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 JIAXING SUPER LIGHTING ELECTRIC Case No. 21-cv-08489-MMC

APPLIANCE CO., LTD.,

5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT v. SIGNIFY HOLDING B.V.’S MOTION TO DISMISS JOHN BRUGGEMAN, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 Before the Court is the “Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),” filed July 18, 2022, by defendant Signify Holding B.V. (“Signify”). Plaintiff Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. (“Super Lighting”) has filed opposition, to which Signify has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court rules as follows.1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND2 Plaintiff Super Lighting, a lighting manufacturer, supplied traditional LED lighting products to nominal defendant Lunera Lighting, Inc. (“Lunera”), a distributor, pursuant to a Purchase and Development Agreement (hereinafter, “the…

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.