paint-brush
OpenAI Believes Its Lawsuit Should Be Thrown Out for Failure to State a Claim Under Ruleby@legalpdf

OpenAI Believes Its Lawsuit Should Be Thrown Out for Failure to State a Claim Under Rule

by Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture

Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases

@legalpdf

Legal PDFs of important tech court cases are far too...

September 19th, 2023
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story in a terminal
Print this story
Read this story w/o Javascript
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

DOE v. GITHUB Court Filing, retrieved on January 26, 2023 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 6 of 21.

People Mentioned

Mention Thumbnail

@legalpdf

featured image - OpenAI Believes Its Lawsuit Should Be Thrown Out for Failure to State a Claim Under Rule
1x
Read by Dr. One voice-avatar

Listen to this story

Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases

Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases

@legalpdf

Legal PDFs of important tech court cases are far too inaccessible for the average reader... until now.

About @legalpdf
LEARN MORE ABOUT @LEGALPDF'S
EXPERTISE AND PLACE ON THE INTERNET.

DOE v. GITHUB Court Filing, retrieved on January 26, 2023 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 6 of 21.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

III. LEGAL STANDARD


B. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Under Rule 12(b)(6).


To satisfy Rule 8 and survive a Rule 12(b)(6) 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. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (cleaned up). Dismissal is appropriate “where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). Where a plaintiff raises generalized allegations against multiple defendants, the complaint has not “stated sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible against one [d]efendant.” In re iPhone App. Litig., No. 11-MD-022590-LHK, 2011 WL 4403963, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011). Moreover, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The Court need not accept as true conclusory allegations or legal characterizations, nor need it accept unreasonable inferences or unwarranted factual deductions. In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008).


Continue Reading here.


About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.


This court case 4:22-cv-06823-JST retrieved on September 8, 2023, from DocumentCloud.org is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.


L O A D I N G
. . . comments & more!

About Author

Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases@legalpdf
Legal PDFs of important tech court cases are far too inaccessible for the average reader... until now.

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN...

Permanent on Arweave
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story in a terminal
 Terminal
Read this story w/o Javascript
Read this story w/o Javascript
 Lite
Coffee-web
Lizedin
Unni
Unni

Mentioned in this story

profiles
X REMOVE AD