SunPower Corporation v. Sunpower California, LLC

S.D. California

SunPower Corporation v. Sunpower California, LLC

DecidedApril 22, 2021

Docket3:21-cv-00375

StatusUnknown

This text of SunPower Corporation v. Sunpower California, LLC (SunPower Corporation v. Sunpower California, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

SunPower Corporation v. Sunpower California, LLC, (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SUNPOWER CORPORATION, Case No.: 21-CV-375-CAB-MSB

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A 12 v. MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND MOTION TO STRIKE 13 SUNPOWER CALIFORNIA, LLC;

GREEN TECH SOLAR d/b/a Sunpower 14 California; and Benjamin Jackson, [Doc. No. 12] 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Benjamin Jackson’s motion for a more 20 definite statement and motion to strike the complaint as to claims against him. The motion 21 has been fully briefed, and the Court deems it suitable for submission without oral 22 argument. Upon review of the motion, the Court is unable to discern any cogent legal 23 argument for dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against Jackson, which is the outcome Jackson 24 seeks notwithstanding the title of his motion. In any event, the Court finds that the 25 complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief 26 that is plausible on its face’” against Jackson, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 27 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)), and that a more 28 definite statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the motion for a more definite statement | to strike the complaint is DENIED. Jackson shall file his answer to the complaint by 2 || May 6, 2021. 3 Itis SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: April 21, 2021 € Z 5 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SUNPOWER CORPORATION, Case No.: 21-CV-375-CAB-MSB

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A 12 v. MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND MOTION TO STRIKE 13 SUNPOWER CALIFORNIA, LLC;

GREEN TECH SOLAR d/b/a Sunpower 14 California; and Benjamin Jackson, [Doc. No. 12] 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Benjamin Jackson’s motion for a more 20 definite statement and motion to strike the complaint as to claims against him. The motion 21 has been fully briefed, and the Court deems it suitable for submission without oral 22 argument. Upon review of the motion, the Court is unable to discern any cogent legal 23 argument for dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against Jackson, which is the outcome Jackson 24 seeks notwithstanding the title of his motion. In any event, the Court finds that the 25 complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief 26 that is plausible on its face’” against Jackson, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 27 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)), and that a more 28 definite statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the motion for a more definite statement | to strike the complaint is DENIED. Jackson shall file his answer to the complaint by 2 || May 6, 2021. 3 Itis SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: April 21, 2021 € Z 5 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

SunPower Corporation v. Sunpower California, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sunpower-corporation-v-sunpower-california-llc-casd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack