Ho Myung Moolsan Co. v. Manitou Mineral Water, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the plaintiffs violated Rule 11 when there was no factual basis for their claims but declining to impose sanctions
• denying leave to amend tortious interference with contract claim because plaintiffs did not specify a single customer contract or contractual term with which defendants interfered
• dismissing RICO claims where allegations merely stated that “some defendants” committed fraud “through” their purported agent
• denying leave to amend tortious interference with contract claim where “plaintiffs failed to identify a specific third-party contract”
• denying leave to amend tortious interference with contract claim that had already been dismissed once because the amended complaint still failed to \specify a single customer contract with which defendants interfered\
• denying leave to amend tortious interference with contract claim that had been dismissed, because plaintiffs alleged only that “defendants interfered with their customer contracts,” but did not “specify a single customer contract with which defendants interfered”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).