§Why CasetextPricing

City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire Retirement System v. Vodafone Group Public Limited Company et al

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 27 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.. Document

31 Cited authorities

  1. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.

    545 U.S. 546 (2005)   Cited 4,154 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the supplemental jurisdiction statute permits the exercise of diversity jurisdiction over additional plaintiffs who fail to satisfy the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement, as long as the other elements of diversity jurisdiction are present and at least one named plaintiff does satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement

  2. In re Burlington Coat Factory

    114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997)   Cited 7,619 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may consider a "document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint" when deciding a motion to dismiss

  3. Novak v. Kasaks

    216 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 1,596 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding section 78u-4(b) does not literally require pleading of all facts, so long as facts pleaded provide adequate basis for believing statements were false

  4. In re Glenfed, Inc. Securities Litigation

    42 F.3d 1541 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 1,712 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs may not "merely proclaim in the most conclusory of fashion that the defendants made false statements."

  5. In re Silicon Graphics Inc.

    183 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 1,409 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that stock sales of individual defendants are only indicative of scienter where they are "dramatically out of line with prior trading practices" (quoting In re Apple Computer Sec. Litig., 886 F.2d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 1989))

  6. Provenz v. Miller

    102 F.3d 1478 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 697 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

  7. In re Advanta Corp. Securities Litigation

    180 F.3d 525 (3d Cir. 1999)   Cited 633 times
    Holding that plaintiffs "may not rest on a bare inference that a defendant `must have had' knowledge of the facts."

  8. Teams. Local 445 v. Dynex Cap

    531 F.3d 190 (2d Cir. 2008)   Cited 447 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs failed to allege corporate scienter where they did not specifically identify reports or statements to which the corporate officer had access that would have contradicted the allegedly fraudulent corporate statements at issue

  9. Fecht v. Price Co.

    70 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 469 times
    Holding that optimistic statements about the defendant company's financial future based on expansion of retail operations were actionable because the plaintiff alleged facts raising the inference that the defendants were aware of adverse facts indicating that the expansion had failed

  10. Segal v. Gordon

    467 F.2d 602 (2d Cir. 1972)   Cited 442 times
    Holding that "distorted inferences and speculations" could not meet Rule 9(b)'s requirements

  11. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 38,845 times   316 Legal Analyses
    Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"

  12. Section 1658 - Time limitations on the commencement of civil actions arising under Acts of Congress

    28 U.S.C. § 1658   Cited 2,372 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the state-law tort period controls § 1983 actions