§Why CasetextPricing

Brodsky et al v. Yahoo! Inc. et al

Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT

31 Cited authorities

  1. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 9,547 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"

  2. Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo

    544 U.S. 336 (2005)   Cited 3,631 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”

  3. Lee v. City of L.A.

    250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 11,032 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court erred in granting a motion to dismiss "by relying on extrinsic evidence and by taking judicial notice of disputed matters of fact to support its ruling"

  4. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.

    316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 5,138 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"

  5. Chiarella v. United States

    445 U.S. 222 (1980)   Cited 990 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that duty to disclose under Rule 10b-5 arises from fiduciary relationship

  6. Sparling v. Daou

    411 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 1,314 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that scienter is an element of § 10(b) claim

  7. Oran v. Stafford

    226 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2000)   Cited 651 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts can take judicial notice of authenticated versions of publicly available documents filed with a regulatory agency

  8. Provenz v. Miller

    102 F.3d 1478 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 719 times
    Holding district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to file surreply because the court did not consider new evidence included in reply brief

  9. No. 84 Employer-Teamster v. America W. Holding

    320 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 505 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the allegations must be considered in their totality in determining whether plaintiffs have met the PSLRA standard

  10. Howard v. Everex Systems

    228 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 489 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding outside directors responsible for SEC filings they signed

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 163,896 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 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 40,128 times   335 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  13. Section 78j - Manipulative and deceptive devices

    15 U.S.C. § 78j   Cited 12,789 times   167 Legal Analyses
    Granting SEC power to establish rules to further statute forbidding manipulative or deceptive devices in connection with purchase or sale of securities

  14. Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-4   Cited 7,734 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

  15. Section 399-F:1 - [Repealed]

    N.H. Rev. Stat. § 399-F:1

    RSA 399-F:1 Repealed by 2024, 202:10, eff. 7/12/2024. Amended by 2019 , 36: 36, eff. 5/15/2019. Amended by 2016 , 230: 8, eff. 8/8/2016. Amended by 2016 , 230: 7, eff. 8/8/2016. Amended by 2015 , 272: §§25, 31eff. 10/1/2015.