National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative v. DIRECTV, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that “a third party beneficiary does not have a duty to perform under the contract and, thus, cannot be sued for breach”
• granting summary judgment on UCL claim finding “Plaintiffs [were] not seeking the return of money that was once in their possession”
• relying on Marin Tug to dismiss both intentional interference with contract and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claims
• “Here, Plaintiffs have not made a showing that the public was impacted at all by DIRECTV’S alleged actions. Thus, Plaintiffs’ claims under the ‘fraudulent’ prong of the UCL fail as a matter of law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).