20 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 263,589 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 276,823 times 369 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing
Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (1962) Cited 29,479 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an appeal was improperly dismissed when the record as a whole — including a timely but incomplete notice of appeal and a premature but complete notice — revealed the orders petitioner sought to appeal
Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.
515 U.S. 277 (1995) Cited 4,387 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that in declaratory judgment actions, district courts have “greater” discretion to abstain than under Colorado River's “exceptional circumstances” test
Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.
316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 5,065 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court abused its discretion because "[d]ismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment"
Manzarek v. Marine
519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 2,911 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that in evaluating a complaint on a motion to dismiss, the court “accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party”
Md. Casualty Co. v. Pacific Co.
312 U.S. 270 (1941) Cited 2,958 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that declaratory judgment action was ripe where state action was pending, and state law gave party the right to sue the other
Bowles v. Reade
198 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 979 times
Holding that a plan participant cannot settle an ERISA § 502 claim without the plan’s consent
Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nevada
649 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 473 times
Holding county hospital's medical committee members were state actors, because the hospital was a public entity that was required to "meet the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment," and defendants' authority "flow[ed] directly from the state"
United States v. Webb
655 F.2d 977 (9th Cir. 1981) Cited 1,150 times
Holding denial of leave to amend, based solely on delay, improper; finding "delay alone no matter how lengthy is an insufficient ground for denial of leave to amend"
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 357,946 times 950 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 162,144 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 93,811 times 92 Legal Analyses
Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint
Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Cited 37,036 times 148 Legal Analyses
Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney

Bailey v. Pride Manufacturing Company, LLC et al

20 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

Holding that an appeal was improperly dismissed when the record as a whole — including a timely but incomplete notice of appeal and a premature but complete notice — revealed the orders petitioner sought to appeal

Holding that in declaratory judgment actions, district courts have “greater” discretion to abstain than under Colorado River's “exceptional circumstances” test

Holding that the district court abused its discretion because "[d]ismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment"

Holding that in evaluating a complaint on a motion to dismiss, the court “accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party”

Holding that declaratory judgment action was ripe where state action was pending, and state law gave party the right to sue the other

Holding that a plan participant cannot settle an ERISA § 502 claim without the plan’s consent

Holding county hospital's medical committee members were state actors, because the hospital was a public entity that was required to "meet the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment," and defendants' authority "flow[ed] directly from the state"

Holding denial of leave to amend, based solely on delay, improper; finding "delay alone no matter how lengthy is an insufficient ground for denial of leave to amend"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney