29 Cited authorities

Phillips v. County of Allegheny
515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) Cited 17,511 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court need not permit a curative amendment if such amendment would be futile
California Public Employees' Retirement System v. Chubb Corp.
394 F.3d 126 (3d Cir. 2004) Cited 1,319 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that confidential witness allegations lacked sufficient sources when brief job descriptions, such as “senior customer service team leader,” did not show how the confidential witnesses could “possess information that the standard commercial business was succeeding or failing on a national level”
In re Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc.
311 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2002) Cited 1,400 times
Holding that a plaintiff must set forth the "who, what, when, where, and how" of the alleged fraud
Phillips v. LCI International, Inc.
190 F.3d 609 (4th Cir. 1999) Cited 1,153 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that “a court may consider [a document attached to a motion to dismiss] in determining whether to dismiss the complaint [when] it was integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint and [when] the plaintiffs do not challenge its authenticity.”
In re Advanta Corp. Securities Litigation
180 F.3d 525 (3d Cir. 1999) Cited 644 times
Holding that plaintiffs "may not rest on a bare inference that a defendant `must have had' knowledge of the facts."
Winer Family Trust v. Queen
503 F.3d 319 (3d Cir. 2007) Cited 493 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the group pleading doctrine is not applicable to those that are not officers or directors of the at-issue company
Instit. Investors Group v. Avaya, Inc.
564 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2009) Cited 438 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that confidential witness allegations were detailed enough when: they reflect information about the relevant company's inability to compete with specific competitors, specific price reductions the company was forced to accept, and the specific clients who received discounts
Cozzarelli v. Inspire
549 F.3d 618 (4th Cir. 2008) Cited 413 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend where the plaintiffs never filed a motion seeking leave nor presented the district court with a proposed amended complaint
Gen. Partner Glenn Tongue v. Sanofi
816 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2016) Cited 321 times 11 Legal Analyses
Finding no claim stated where "Plaintiffs' case essentially boils down to an allegation that the statements were misleading for failure to include a fact that would have potentially undermined Defendants' optimistic projections"
Or. Pub. Emps. Ret. Fund v. Apollo Grp. Inc.
774 F.3d 598 (9th Cir. 2014) Cited 270 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of loss causation must satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) ’s heightened "particularity" requirement
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 164,455 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Bauer v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al

29 Cited authorities

Holding that a district court need not permit a curative amendment if such amendment would be futile

Holding that a plaintiff must set forth the "who, what, when, where, and how" of the alleged fraud

Holding that “a court may consider [a document attached to a motion to dismiss] in determining whether to dismiss the complaint [when] it was integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint and [when] the plaintiffs do not challenge its authenticity.”

Holding that plaintiffs "may not rest on a bare inference that a defendant `must have had' knowledge of the facts."

Holding that the group pleading doctrine is not applicable to those that are not officers or directors of the at-issue company

Holding that confidential witness allegations were detailed enough when: they reflect information about the relevant company's inability to compete with specific competitors, specific price reductions the company was forced to accept, and the specific clients who received discounts

Holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend where the plaintiffs never filed a motion seeking leave nor presented the district court with a proposed amended complaint

Finding no claim stated where "Plaintiffs' case essentially boils down to an allegation that the statements were misleading for failure to include a fact that would have potentially undermined Defendants' optimistic projections"

Holding that allegations of loss causation must satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) ’s heightened "particularity" requirement

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