Von Grabe v. Sprint PCS

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the “use of a common trademark and 11 trade name” is not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a parent company
• holding that a common trade name and logo, without more, is not a sufficient basis for establishing personal jurisdiction
• interpreting Outboard Marine as requiring absolutely strict application of the notice requirement, and noting the absence of contrary cases
• dismissing for failure to comply with Section 1782, and noting that \ strict application of the requirement was necessary\
• “For some time, federal courts in this district dismissed CLRA claims with prejudice when the plaintiff did not provide the required notice before filing the complaint.”
• “The letter must identify the 12 particular § 1770 violations that the plaintiff is alleging and demand that the defendant correct 13 those violations.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).