Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp. (2006)
green
· 49 citation events
across 15 courts.
Showing the 26 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200720162026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Marolda v. Symantec Corp. (2009)
Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1097 (N.D.Cal.2006) (Patel, J.). *999 Plaintiff identifies the misrepresentation as follows: On June 17, 2006, the Symantec website displayed a table comparing the features of NIS 2006 with those of other products, FAC ¶ 8; the On-Going Protection feature did not have a check-mark in the NIS 2006 column, FAC ¶ 9; and Symantic knew the website information was false because in 2007 Symantec renewed Marolda’s NIS 2006 subscripti…
green
In re Milo's Dog Treats Consolidated Cases (2014)
Jan. 6, 2014) (same); Pardini v. Unilever United States, Inc., 961 F.Supp.2d 1048, 1059-60 (N.D.Cal.2013) (same); Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1100 (N.D.Cal.2006) (same).
green
Gray v. Dignity Health (2021)
Cal. 2006) 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1098 [defendants’ oral representations that plaintiff would be refunded unauthor- ized charges amounted to a misrepresentation that she had a right to a re- fund, thus stating a claim under Civ.
Cal. April 14, 2010) (citing Nordberg v. 22 Trilegiant Corp., 445 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1100 (N.D.
green
Martin v. Pacific Union Financial, LLC (2020)
Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1100 (N.D.
green
Moss v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. (2017)
Jan. 31, 2014) (dismissing RICO claim when plaintiffs “only factual allegations relating to the enterprise are that its members had ongoing business relationships”); Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1092 (N.D.
rejecting a RICO enterprise based upon "the existence of routine contractual relationships”
green
Ellsworth v. U.S. Bank, N.A. (2014)
As another court in this district explained, “although plaintiffs’ claim under their eighth cause of action may ultimately be superfluous to their restitution claim under section 17200, it is inappropriate at the motion to dismiss stage to make that determination, as plaintiffs may prevail in one cause of action and not in the other.” • Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1101 (N.D.Cal.2006).
green
Leghorn v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2013)
Opposition to Wells, 15 (citing Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1100-01 (N.D.Cal.2006); Keilholtz v. Superior Fireplace Co., 2009 WL 839076 , at *5 (N.D.Cal.
green
McKenzie v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2013)
Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1100 (N.D.Cal.2006).
green
I.B. ex rel. Fife v. Facebook, Inc. (2012)
Facebook contends that it is not a “financial institution” covered by the statute, citing Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1094-95 (N.D.Cal.2006).
green
Donohue v. Apple, Inc. (2012)
LEXIS 52192 at *11 (quoting Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1097-98 (N.D.Cal.2006)).
green
McNeary-Calloway v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2012)
Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1100 (N.D.Cal.2006) (Patel, J.).
Malcolm, 2010 WL 934252 , at *7 (citing Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1100 (N.D.Cal.2006)); Wilder, 2009 U.S. Dist.
Vess, 317 F.3d at 1103-04 (emphasis in original); Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1097 (N.D.Cal.2006).
green
In Re Easysaver Rewards Litigation (2010)
Nordberg, 445 F.Supp.2d at 1088 (“the named plaintiffs allege that defendants debited amounts from their credit or debit card accounts without the prior approval of the plaintiffs”).
“the named plaintiffs allege that defendants debited amounts from their credit or debit card accounts without the prior approval of the plaintiffs”
green
Kenneally v. Bank of Nova Scotia (2010)
“The state and the federal courts appear to be unclear whether in California a court may recognize a claim for ‘unjust enrichment’ as a separate cause of action.” Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1100 (N.D.Cal.2006) (collecting cases).
green
In Re Countrywide Financial Corp. Mortg. Marketing (2009)
See Stachon v. United Consumers Club, Inc., 229 F.3d 673, 676 (7th Cir.2000) (stating RICO claim failed “because the enterprise lacks the requisite structure”); Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1091 (N.D.Cal.2006) (finding plaintiffs "failed to identify any sort of independent structure”).
green
Friedman v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2008)
See, e.g., Gonzales v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, 532 F.Supp.2d 1200, 1209 (C.D.Cal.2006); Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1090-92 (N.D.Cal.2006); Jubelirer v. MasterCard Int'l, Inc., 68 F.Supp.2d 1049, 1052-53 (W.D.Wis.1999).
green
Lee Cheramie v. Hbb, LLC (2013)
See, e.g., Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F. Supp. 2d 1082 , 1099–1101 (N.D.
green
RaceRedi Motorsports, LLC v. Dart MacHinery, Ltd. (2009)
See Nordberg v. Trilegiant *667 Corp., 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1100 (N.D.Cal. 2006) (discussing the “apparent confusion over the viability of a cause of action for unjust enrichment” under California law and collecting cases).
discussing the “apparent confusion over the viability of a cause of action for unjust enrichment” under California law and collecting cases
green
Houston v. Fifth Third Bank (2019)
See Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1094 (N.D.
green
In re Fluidmaster, Inc. (2016)
See, e.g., Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1095 (N.D.Cal.2006) (CLRA’s requirement that the plaintiff “acquire” a product does not “require[ ] affirmative or conscious action, let alone a desire for the subject to be acquired”).
green
Alejandro v. St Micro Electronics, Inc. (2015)
See Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1101 (N.D.Cal.2006) (denying as premature motion to dismiss declaratory relief claim at pleading stage).
green
Khoday v. Symantec Corp. (2012)
See Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1100 (N.D.Cal.2006) (analyzing the apparent conflict in California cases regarding unjust enrichment, and finding that courts denying claims for unjust enrichment improperly focus on a semantic distinction between "unjust enrichment” and "restitution”). .
green
Ironforge. Com v. Paychex, Inc. (2010)
See Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1094 (N.D.Cal.2006) (treating corporation as a “person” under EFTA).
green
Walter v. Hughes Communications, Inc. (2010)
See Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp., 445 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1097 (N.D.Cal.2006).