18 Cited authorities

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 274,949 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
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders
437 U.S. 340 (1978) Cited 4,473 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that that the production of putative class members' names pursuant to Federal Rule 26 was not "within the scope of legitimate discovery."
Iqbal v. Hasty
490 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2007) Cited 1,836 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Twombly's plausibility standard "obliges a pleader to amplify a claim with some factual allegations in those contexts where such amplification is needed to render the claim plausible"
Rosado v. Proctor Schwartz
66 N.Y.2d 21 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 285 times
Holding that a party seeking indemnification may not be held responsible to any degree
Monaghan v. SZS 33 Associates, L.P.
73 F.3d 1276 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 87 times
Holding that indemnification is not available under New York law to party who is itself partially at fault or is alleged to have himself violated the same duty to the underlying plaintiff
Kenneth Leventhal Co. v. Joyner Wholesale Co.
736 F.2d 29 (2d Cir. 1984) Cited 94 times
Holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to dismiss a third-party complaint based upon "a speculative, `but for' causal link"
Too, Inc. v. Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc.
213 F.R.D. 138 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) Cited 39 times
Allowing contribution impleader to proceed where third-party defendants played a role in establishing the underlying liability
Hicks v. Long Island R.R.
165 F.R.D. 377 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) Cited 26 times
Denying leave to implead where discovery near completion because trial would be delayed
Rodolico v. Unisys Corp.
189 F.R.D. 245 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) Cited 19 times 1 Legal Analyses
Allowing employer to bring claim for potential New York Human Rights Law liability
Gross v. Hanover Ins. Co.
138 F.R.D. 53 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) Cited 21 times
Noting that "there is some question as to whether plaintiff may attack the merits of the proposed third-party claims at this stage of the proceedings"
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 71,767 times 127 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
Rule 14 - Third-Party Practice
Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 Cited 3,685 times 10 Legal Analyses
Striking improper third-party claim is appropriate remedy

Capitol Records, LLC v. City Hall Records, Inc. et al

18 Cited authorities

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

Holding that that the production of putative class members' names pursuant to Federal Rule 26 was not "within the scope of legitimate discovery."

Holding that Twombly's plausibility standard "obliges a pleader to amplify a claim with some factual allegations in those contexts where such amplification is needed to render the claim plausible"

Holding that a party seeking indemnification may not be held responsible to any degree

Holding that indemnification is not available under New York law to party who is itself partially at fault or is alleged to have himself violated the same duty to the underlying plaintiff

Holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to dismiss a third-party complaint based upon "a speculative, `but for' causal link"

Allowing contribution impleader to proceed where third-party defendants played a role in establishing the underlying liability

Denying leave to implead where discovery near completion because trial would be delayed

Allowing employer to bring claim for potential New York Human Rights Law liability

Noting that "there is some question as to whether plaintiff may attack the merits of the proposed third-party claims at this stage of the proceedings"

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

Striking improper third-party claim is appropriate remedy