26 Cited authorities

Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co.
473 U.S. 479 (1985) Cited 4,219 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the fact that a statute can be "applied in situations not expressly anticipated by Congress does not demonstrate ambiguity. It demonstrates breadth."
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept
901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988) Cited 15,935 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a cognizable gender discrimination claim could be brought by a female domestic violence victim where the victim alleged police denied protection and made misogynistic comments including that "he did not blame [the victim's] husband for hitting her, because of the way she was 'carrying on'"
United States v. Turkette
452 U.S. 576 (1981) Cited 2,714 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a RICO enterprise must exist "separate and apart" from the pattern of racketeering activity
Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.
547 U.S. 451 (2006) Cited 848 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a business could not recover against its competitor for a scheme to defraud the New York State tax authority that allowed the defendant to undercut the plaintiff's prices
Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
80 F.3d 336 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 3,293 times
Holding that allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff
Schreiber Distributing v. Serv-Well Furniture
806 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 2,271 times
Holding that Rule 9(b) requires the plaintiff to "state with particularity" the "circumstances constituting the fraud," including a statement of "the time, place, and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentation."
Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc.
885 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1989) Cited 1,829 times
Holding that a complaint did not satisfy Rule 9(b) because it "d[id] not specify which plaintiff received which prospectus, or which plaintiff made purchases through the stockbroker defendants"
Odom v. Microsoft Corp.
486 F.3d 541 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 849 times
Holding that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged an association-in-fact enterprise of two corporations
Republic of Pan. v. BCCI Holdings (Lux.) S.A.
119 F.3d 935 (11th Cir. 1997) Cited 533 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding sec. 1132(e) valid unless it causes a "severe disadvantage" to defendant
Bender v. Southland Corp.
749 F.2d 1205 (6th Cir. 1984) Cited 687 times
Holding that Rule 9 requires the plaintiff to "at minimum allege the time, place and contents of the misrepresentations"
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 344,481 times 920 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 1961 - Definitions
18 U.S.C. § 1961 Cited 14,910 times 72 Legal Analyses
Defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include
Section 1964 - Civil remedies
18 U.S.C. § 1964 Cited 6,074 times 40 Legal Analyses
Granting civil remedies for RICO violation

Barker et al v. Default Resolution Network et al

26 Cited authorities

Holding that the fact that a statute can be "applied in situations not expressly anticipated by Congress does not demonstrate ambiguity. It demonstrates breadth."

Holding that a RICO enterprise must exist "separate and apart" from the pattern of racketeering activity

Holding that a business could not recover against its competitor for a scheme to defraud the New York State tax authority that allowed the defendant to undercut the plaintiff's prices

Holding that allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff

Holding that Rule 9(b) requires the plaintiff to "state with particularity" the "circumstances constituting the fraud," including a statement of "the time, place, and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentation."

Holding that a complaint did not satisfy Rule 9(b) because it "d[id] not specify which plaintiff received which prospectus, or which plaintiff made purchases through the stockbroker defendants"

Holding that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged an association-in-fact enterprise of two corporations

Holding sec. 1132(e) valid unless it causes a "severe disadvantage" to defendant

Holding that Rule 9 requires the plaintiff to "at minimum allege the time, place and contents of the misrepresentations"

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

Defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include

Granting civil remedies for RICO violation