Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 □□□ (6) 16 is the appropriate means of disposing of an improper claim for 17 relief
• holding that “Rule 12(f) does not authorize district courts to strike claims for [consequential] damages” because such claims similarly don’t fit within any of Rule 12(f)’s categories
• holding that 2 Rule 12(f) “does not authorize a district court to dismiss a claim for damages on the 3 basis it is precluded as a matter of law”
• holding that Rule 12(f) 2 “does not authorize a district court to dismiss a claim for damages on the basis it is precluded as a 3 matter of law.”
• holding that non-viable damages claims are subject to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
• holding that non-viable damages claims are subject to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).