§Why CasetextPricing

Brady et al v. Deloitte & Touche LLP et al

Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION for More Definite Statement DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT to Defendant's Motion to for a More Definite Statement

13 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 282,303 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

  2. Bureerong v. Uvawas

    922 F. Supp. 1450 (C.D. Cal. 1996)   Cited 394 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Rule 12(e) motion must attack the unintelligibility of a pleading, not merely the lack of detail

  3. In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wage Hour Lit.

    505 F. Supp. 2d 609 (N.D. Cal. 2007)   Cited 228 times
    Holding that the defendant's motions to dismiss or strike the class allegations are premature" where the defendant had not answered the complaint, discovery had not yet commenced, and no motion for class certification had been filed

  4. Cellars v. Pacific Coast Packaging, Inc.

    189 F.R.D. 575 (N.D. Cal. 1999)   Cited 131 times
    Dismissing warranty claim based on plaintiff's failure to allege privity or a recognized exception

  5. Famolare, Inc. v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc.

    525 F. Supp. 940 (E.D. Cal. 1981)   Cited 180 times
    Finding a Rule 12(e) motion proper "only where the complaint is so indefinite that the defendant cannot ascertain the nature of the claim being asserted"

  6. Myers v. Medquist, Inc.

    Civil No. 05-4608 (JBS) (D.N.J. Dec. 20, 2006)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that, at the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff may “maintain a claim for unjust enrichment while at the same time pleading that a valid contract existed”

  7. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Musacchio

    695 F. Supp. 1053 (N.D. Cal. 1988)   Cited 74 times
    Finding that if plaintiff's complaint meets the notice requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, and defendants are provided with a sufficient basis to respond, the proper avenue for eliciting additional detail is through discovery

  8. Edwards v. McCormick

    196 F.R.D. 487 (S.D. Ohio 2000)   Cited 29 times

    Consumer brought action against debt collector, alleging violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA). Consumer moved for class certification. The District Court, Marbley, J., held that: (1) proposed class was ill-defined and overly broad; (2) consumer failed to satisfy numerosity requirement for class certification; (3) commonality test for class certification was satisfied; and (4) consumer failed to satisfy typicality requirement for

  9. Abdallah v. Coca-Cola Co.

    186 F.R.D. 672 (N.D. Ga. 1999)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that even though "Coca-Cola has not given the Court any reason to suspect that it will attempt to mislead its employees and coerce them into non-participation . . . simple reality suggests that the danger of coercion is real and justifies the imposition of limitations on Coca-Cola's communications"

  10. In re American Intern. Airways, Inc.

    66 B.R. 642 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1986)   Cited 25 times

    Bankruptcy No. 84-02379K. Adv. No. 86-0957K. November 3, 1986. Marc N. Bell, Philadelphia, Pa., for trustee. Clayton H. Thomas, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant. Harry P. Begier, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., Trustee. Pace Reich, Philadelphia, Pa., for debtor. OPINION DAVID A. SCHOLL, Bankruptcy Judge. This adversarial proceeding is one of over two hundred (200) actions instituted by the Trustee of the Debtor in this Chapter 11 bankruptcy case to recover funds allegedly transferred by the Debtor within

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 165,340 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 36,431 times   1260 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"