Orchard Supply Hardware LLC v. Home Depot USA, Inc. (2013)
green
· 12 citation events
across 5 courts.
Showing the 9 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Esquibel v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (2025)
California False Advertising Law To state a claim under California’s False Advertising Law (FAL), plaintiffs need “only to show that members of the public are likely to be deceived by an advertisement.” Orchard Supply Hardware, LLC v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 967 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1366 (N.D.
internal quotations omitted
green
Biddle v. The Walt Disney Company (2023)
Cf. Orchard Supply Hardware 21 LLC v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 967 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1358 (N.D.
finding generic 22 allegations insufficient to plead a viable injury to competition, noting, inter alia, that there were 23 no allegations that the agreement facilitated horizontal collusion or foreclosed competitors from 24 entering into or competing in a market.
green
Fendelander v. Walt Disney Company (2023)
Cf. Orchard Supply Hardware 22 LLC v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 967 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1358 (N.D.
finding generic 23 allegations insufficient to plead a viable injury to competition, noting, inter alia, that there were 24 no allegations that the agreement facilitated horizontal collusion or foreclosed competitors from 25 entering into or competing in a market.
green
Zunum Aero Inc v. The Boeing Company (2022)
Any ‘group boycott’ therefore 9 consisted of a vertical agreement, to which the rule of reason applies.”); Orchard Supply 10 Hardware LLC v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 967 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1357 (N.D.
green
Edd King v. National General Insurance Company (2021)
“The purpose of Rule 9(b) is to give defendants 24 adequate notice of the charges being brought so they can defend against them, and to deter the filing 25 of frivolous charges related to fraud.” Orchard Supply Hardware LLC v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 26 967 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1365 (N.D.
citing In re Stac Electronics Securities Litigation, 89 27 F.3d 1399, 1405 (9th Cir. 1996)
green
Park Miller, LLC v. Durham Group, Ltd. (2020)
See, e.g., Heartland, 2014 WL 5812294 , at *8 24 (“Heartland does not allege that any of its contracts with any former merchant have actually been 25 breached, much less breached because of interference by Mercury.”); Orchard Supply Hardware 26 LLC v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 967 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1365 (N.D.
requiring actual 27 breach as an element
green
King v. National General Insurance (2015)
“The purpose of Rule 9(b) is to give defendants adequate notice of the charges being brought so they can defend against them, and to deter the filing of frivolous charges related to fraud.” Orchard Supply Hardware LLC v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 967 F.Supp.2d 1347, 1365 (N.D.Cal.2013) (citing In re Stac Electronics Securities Litigation, 89 F.3d 1399, 1405 (9th Cir.1996)).
See Orchard Supply Hardware LLC v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 967 F.Supp.2d 1347, 1364 (N.D.Cal.2013) (“[A]ets permissible under antitrust laws ‘cannot be deemed unfair under the unfair competition law,’ at least not where a plaintiff alleges that the acts are unfair for the same reason it argues that they violate antitrust law.” (quoting Chavez v. Whirlpool Corp., 93 Cal.App.4th 363 , 113 Cal. Rptr.2d 175, 184 (2001))).
A plaintiff must allege “injury to competition in the market as a whole, not merely injury to itself, as a competitor.” Gorlick Distribution Centers, LLC v. Car Sound Exhaust Sys., Inc., 723 F.3d 1019, 1024-25 (9th Cir.2013); see also Orchard Supply Hardware LLC v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 967 F.Supp.2d 1347, 1358 (N.D.Cal.2013).