KING, GREG, PEOPLE v

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[courts] apply the same plausibility standard used to evaluate a motion under Rule 12(b)(6)” when ruling on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion
• noting that a party plaintiff and putative collective members are 13 “similarly situated, and may proceed in a collective, to the extent they share a similar issue of law 14 or fact material to the disposition of their FLSA claims”
• explaining that economic loss “is the prototypical concrete harm”
• “[C]hanging the product bottle so as to dispense a different amount of prescription eye solution is a ‘major change’ under 21 C.F.R. § 314.70(b),” meaning that “plaintiffs’ attempt to use state law to require such a change is preempted.”
• affirming district court's dismissal of case asserting that eye drop manufacturer's practice of using eye drop dispensers that emit unnecessarily large drops was unfair and resulted in unjust enrichment because the manufacturing changes plaintiffs sought would require prior FDA approval
• “A constitutionally sufficient injury arises from an ‘invasion of a legally protected interest’ that is both ‘concrete and particularized’ as well as ‘actual or imminent,’ rather than ‘conjectural or hypothetical.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).