Pre-BP Lubricant Case Allows General Pleading for Intent to Deceive

Heathcote Holdings Corp., Inc. v. Maybelline LLC, No. 10 C 2544, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2011) (Pallmeyer, J.). Judge Pallmeyer granted in part defendants' (collectively "Maybelline") motion to dismiss plaintiff Heathcote's false patent marking case. The Court also granted Maybelline's motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York. In this pre-BP Lubricants case, the Court held that Heathcote had sufficiently pled intent to deceive by pleading the allegedly false statement and Maybelline's knowledge of the false statement. These are the type of allegations specifically held to be in sufficient by BP Lubricants. Heathcote did not oppose Maybelline's motion to dismiss L'Oreal USA Creative, so long as it was given leave to replead if it later found Maybelline's representations were wrong. Finally, the Court transferred the case to Maybelline's home district, the Southern District of New York. One key factor was that the alleged conduct would have largely occurred at Maybelline's headquarters, in New York. The Court also held that the sources of proof in the case will be more accessible in New York than in Illinois.

Read more detail on Recent Copyright Posts –

Legal notice about the Pre-BP Lubricant Case Allows General Pleading for Intent to Deceive rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.

Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to Pre-BP Lubricant Case Allows General Pleading for Intent to Deceive?

This entry was posted in Copyright Law and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply