Thomas v. Bowman

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because their broad allegation that all the products ever sold by defendants failed to comply with applicable safety standards was unsupported by plausible facts
• concluding that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because their broad allegation that all the products ever sold by defendants failed to comply with applicable safety standards was unsupported by plausible facts
• finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead fraudulent concealment when they relied on the same general allegations supporting their substantive claims
• “Sweeping allegations of harm must be supported by enough facts to render them plausible and this Complaint fails to include such facts.”
• dismissing plaintiff’s declaratory judgment count as duplicative of the plaintiff’s other claims
• “Iqbal and Twombly require Plaintiffs to provide factual support for their allegations of fraudulent concealment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).