![]() ![]() The advertisement that they offer is dated August 7, 2009-nine months after Plaintiffs filed suit. Plaintiffs have since submitted a single advertisement which, they assert, “was identified as the source of the misleading statements alleged in paragraph 20 of the Second Amended Complaint.” Pls.' Supplemental Submission at 1. See Freeman, 68 F.3d at 589 Oswego, 85 N.Y.2d at 26, 623 N.Y.S.2d 529, 647 N.E.2d 741.Īt oral argument, we observed that the record did not contain the allegedly deceptive advertisements upon which Plaintiffs base their suit, and, because the precise formulation and context of Time Warner's representations are pivotal to Plaintiffs' claims, we asked Plaintiffs to supplement the record accordingly. It is well settled that a court may determine as a matter of law that an allegedly deceptive advertisement would not have misled a reasonable consumer. To prevail on their consumer fraud claims under New York and California law, Plaintiffs must establish that Time Warner's allegedly deceptive advertisements were likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances. ![]() “Plausibility ․ depends on a host of considerations: the full factual picture presented by the complaint, the particular cause of action and its elements, and the existence of alternative explanations so obvious that they render plaintiff's inferences unreasonable.” L–7 Designs, Inc. This standard demands “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ “ Ashcroft v. We review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, accepting as true all factual claims in the complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Plaintiffs assert that Time Warner's allegedly deceptive advertisements violate New York General Business Law § 349 and various California consumer protection statutes, and give rise to claims for common law fraud, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs challenge the veracity of certain advertisements in which Time Warner allegedly described its Road Runner Internet service (“Road Runner”) as providing (1) an “always-on connection” (2) at a “blazing speed” (3) that is “up to 3 times the speed of most standard DSL packages and up to 100x faster than dial-up” and (4) the “fastest, easiest way to get online.” Plaintiffs, who sue on behalf of a putative nationwide class consisting of Road Runner subscribers, allege that these advertisements were false and misleading because Time Warner engages in network management techniques that decrease the speed at which Road Runner subscribers access certain high-bandwidth Internet applications. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court. We conclude that the allegations stated in the Complaint-which raise claims related to deceptive advertising by Defendant–Appellee Time Warner Cable (“Time Warner”)-lack facial plausibility sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs–Appellants Jessica Fink and Brett Noia (“Plaintiffs”) appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Laura Taylor Swain, Judge ) dismissing their Second Amended Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pincus, on the brief), Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant–Appellee. Keller, Milberg LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs–Appellants. Williams, on the brief), Reese Richman LLP, New York, NY, and Stanford P. Decided: May 06, 2013īefore CABRANES, CHIN, and CARNEY, Circuit Judges. TIME WARNER CABLE, Defendant–Appellee, Time Warner, Inc., Defendant. ![]() Jessica FINK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Brett Noia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |