CustomGuide v. CAREERBUILDER, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a claim that a defendant was unjustly enriched by selling the plaintiffs products and services was preempted
• stating that such pleadings make it \virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief\
• noting that consumer nexus test requires plaintiff to plead that the conduct complained of “ ‘involves trade practices directed to the market generally or otherwise implicates consumer protection concerns.’ ”
• dismissing an IUDTPA claim alleging that the defendant “actively promoted and misrepresented [plaintiffs] products” as its own on the basis of preemption
• granting motion to dismiss CFAA claim where Plaintiff failed to allege facts “connecting its purported ‘loss’ to an interruption of service of its computer systems”
• “shotgun pleading” makes it “virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).