14 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 267,813 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Maldonado v. Fontanes
568 F.3d 263 (1st Cir. 2009) Cited 875 times
Holding that a consensus of three circuits was sufficient to establish that the killing of a pet was a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment
Pearson v. Component Tech. Corp.
247 F.3d 471 (3d Cir. 2001) Cited 646 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that no person held a director or officer position both with CompTech and with GECC
Vogt v. Greenmarine Holding, LLC
318 F. Supp. 2d 136 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) Cited 65 times
Finding allegations that "parent companies made the decision to effect a mass layoff of [the subsidiary's] employees with no regard for the statutory warning time" were sufficient to show the parents "disregard[ed] the separate legal personality of subsidiary in directing the subsidiary to act"
In re APA Transport Corp. Consolidated Litigation
541 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2008) Cited 47 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that sharing certain benefit plans and some employee monitoring functions is insufficient to support a finding that the companies functioned as a single entity
Milan v. Centennial Communications Corp.
500 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.P.R. 2007) Cited 21 times
Considering state corporate law, single employer theory under federal law, and federal WARN Act regulation in resolving single employer issue
In re Consolidated Bedding
432 B.R. 115 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010) Cited 14 times
Holding summary allegations were mere "legal conclusions or factually unsupported and therefore not entitled to an assumption of truth"
United Paperworkers v. Alden Corrugated
901 F. Supp. 426 (D. Mass. 1995) Cited 22 times
Finding that employer did not act in good faith when it relied on simplistic legal advise in the face of WARN's complex statutory requirements
Bennett v. Roark Capital Group, Inc.
738 F. Supp. 2d 157 (D. Me. 2010) Cited 2 times
Declining to dismiss a claim where plaintiff had plausibly alleged that one entity "exercised control over labor relations" of the other
United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America Local 157 v. OEM/Erie Westland, LLC
203 F. Supp. 2d 825 (E.D. Mich. 2002) Cited 4 times
Allowing WARN Act claims to proceed where the defendant told the employer to shut down its plant, controlled some components of the business, such as the type of accounting and computer systems, and then terminated the plant's operations by pulling the plug on its computer systems
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 362,607 times 962 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 164,455 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 95,100 times 92 Legal Analyses
Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint
Section 639.3 - Definitions
20 C.F.R. § 639.3 Cited 233 times 12 Legal Analyses
Describing what constitutes a "single site of employment"

Contini et al v. Prentice Capital Management, L.P.

14 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

Holding that a consensus of three circuits was sufficient to establish that the killing of a pet was a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment

Holding that no person held a director or officer position both with CompTech and with GECC

Finding allegations that "parent companies made the decision to effect a mass layoff of [the subsidiary's] employees with no regard for the statutory warning time" were sufficient to show the parents "disregard[ed] the separate legal personality of subsidiary in directing the subsidiary to act"

Holding that sharing certain benefit plans and some employee monitoring functions is insufficient to support a finding that the companies functioned as a single entity

Considering state corporate law, single employer theory under federal law, and federal WARN Act regulation in resolving single employer issue

Holding summary allegations were mere "legal conclusions or factually unsupported and therefore not entitled to an assumption of truth"

Finding that employer did not act in good faith when it relied on simplistic legal advise in the face of WARN's complex statutory requirements

Declining to dismiss a claim where plaintiff had plausibly alleged that one entity "exercised control over labor relations" of the other

Allowing WARN Act claims to proceed where the defendant told the employer to shut down its plant, controlled some components of the business, such as the type of accounting and computer systems, and then terminated the plant's operations by pulling the plug on its computer systems

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

Describing what constitutes a "single site of employment"