Indiana Quarries Co. v. Simms

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that UCL claim 6 must be dismissed under Mazza where the plaintiff conceded he did not purchase the product in 7 California
• explaining that express warranties must be “specific and unequivocal” and may not be vague statements
• explaining that “the complaint may not be amended by the briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss” (quotation omitted)
• stating that “choice of law analysis is a fact-specific inquiry 26 which requires a more developed factual record than is generally available on a motion to dismiss”
• holding as “mere puffery” a tagline that appeared on every box of a product
• dismissing plaintiffs breach of implied warranty of particular purpose claim where the complaint only alleged that the plaintiff intended to use the product for its ordinary use

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).