Lindsey v. City of St. Paul

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that defendants did not have exclusive knowledge of battery testing conditions when those conditions had been reported in Newsweek
• granting motion to dismiss on active concealment allegation based on general assertion that defendants “actively concealed material facts from Plaintiff and the Class.”
• no actionable omission where both the defendant and the press had reported the testing conditions used to measure a laptop’s battery life
• “CLRA violations may serve as the predicate for ‘unlawful’ business practice actions under the UCL.”
• “A defendant’s liability [under the UCL] must be based on his personal 20 ‘participation in the unlawful practices' and ‘unbridled control’ over the practices.’”
• “Plaintiff must allege specific affirmative acts on the part of the 22 Defendants in hiding, concealing or covering up the matters complained of.” (quotation marks and internal alterations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).