§Why CasetextPricing

CAF AND CTF v. MP et al

REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion

20 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 261,006 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 274,396 times   368 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

  3. Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA

    568 U.S. 398 (2013)   Cited 3,251 times   169 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in the absence of some independent existing or impending harm, plaintiffs "cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves"

  4. Phillips v. County of Allegheny

    515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008)   Cited 17,239 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court need not permit a curative amendment if such amendment would be futile

  5. Lopez v. Smith

    203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 24,442 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his complaint if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the deficiencies in the complaint

  6. Bonin v. Calderon

    59 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 2,055 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to amend where the movant presents no new facts but only new theories and provides no satisfactory explanation for his failure to fully develop his contentions originally"

  7. Usher v. City of Los Angeles

    828 F.2d 556 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 2,113 times
    Holding that plaintiffs significantly prejudiced where effect of new rule is to shorten limitations period such that they have no opportunity to follow new rule

  8. Com. of Pa. ex Rel. Zimmerman v. Pepsico, Inc.

    836 F.2d 173 (3d Cir. 1988)   Cited 1,428 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that legal theories set forth in a response brief cannot serve to amend a complaint in response to a motion to dismiss

  9. Trump Hotels Casino v. Mirage Resorts

    140 F.3d 478 (3d Cir. 1998)   Cited 805 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that dismissal is appropriate "only if . . . no relief could be granted under any set of facts consistent with the allegations of the complaint"

  10. Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of L.A.

    759 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 199 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming denial of leave to amend where plaintiff's allegations were "merely possible rather than plausible," and where plaintiff had failed to "overcome the plausible and obvious explanation that [the defendant] did not knowingly submit false claims"

  11. Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1367   Cited 63,618 times   79 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"

  12. Section 2710 - Wrongful disclosure of video tape rental or sale records

    18 U.S.C. § 2710   Cited 228 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting disclosure of "personally identifiable information concerning" consumer of video rental establishment without consent

  13. Section 2A:38A-3 - Computer-related offenses; compensatory and punitive damages; costs and expenses

    N.J. Stat. § 2A:38A-3   Cited 56 times   1 Legal Analyses

    A person or enterprise damaged in business or property as a result of any of the following actions may sue the actor therefor in the Superior Court and may recover compensatory and punitive damages and the cost of the suit including a reasonable attorney's fee, costs of investigation and litigation: a. The purposeful or knowing, and unauthorized altering, damaging, taking or destruction of any data, data base, computer program, computer software or computer equipment existing internally or externally