Mondis Technology Ltd. v. Chimei InnoLux Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• granting a 7 motion to dismiss where “the facts [Plaintiff] pleads are conclusory, of unclear relevance, 8 or so bizarre as to be entirely implausible”
• dismissing in part because 17 “Plaintiff cites a number of legal theories for the same claim”
• dismissing § 1981, § 1983, and § 17 1985 claims against various federal defendants on the basis that these claims were barred 18 by sovereign immunity
• granting a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with Rule 8(a
• dismissing action because Plaintiff failed to clarify which claims were brought against which Defendants and articulate a factual basis for any of her claims; these deficiencies ran “afoul of the requirements of both Rule 8(a) and Rule 12(b)(6
• dismissing action because Plaintiff failed to clarify which claims were brought against which Defendants and articulate a factual basis for any of her claims; these deficiencies ran “afoul of the requirements of both Rule 8(a) and Rule 12(b)(6

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).