Cate v. Rouse

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that á majqrity of courts have held that the third-party beneficiary exception may be invoked, but holding that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Clemens requires dismissal of the claim
• finding that the defendant’s representation that an internal hard drive was “produced using the most sophisticated manufacturing process in the industry” to be non-actionable puffery
• dismissing claim because the plaintiffs did not allege that the defendant “failed to 22 provide a replacement for a defective drive still under warranty after being presented with an 23 opportunity to do so”
• “Absent guidance from the California courts about the proper definition of an unfair business practice, federal courts have applied both tests.”
• “[A] California implied warranty claim under the Song-Beverly Act . . . does not require privity.”
• “[A] California implied warranty claim under the Song–Beverly Act . . . does not require privity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).