§Why CasetextPricing

Crissen v. Gupta et al

BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint

46 Cited authorities

  1. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown

    564 U.S. 915 (2011)   Cited 5,467 times   88 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction

  2. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

    471 U.S. 462 (1985)   Cited 17,188 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant has "fair warning" if he purposefully directs his activities at residents of the forum and if the litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of or relating to those activities.

  3. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall

    466 U.S. 408 (1984)   Cited 9,405 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation

  4. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court

    480 U.S. 102 (1987)   Cited 4,947 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in suit by Taiwanese manufacturer for indemnification against Japanese manufacturer, the assertion by California court of personal jurisdiction over Japanese manufacturer was unreasonable

  5. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co.

    473 U.S. 479 (1985)   Cited 4,266 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the fact that a statute can be "applied in situations not expressly anticipated by Congress does not demonstrate ambiguity. It demonstrates breadth."

  6. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

    326 U.S. 310 (1945)   Cited 22,988 times   110 Legal Analyses
    Holding that states may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants with "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ " (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) )

  7. Omni Capital Int'l v. Rudolf Wolff Co.

    484 U.S. 97 (1987)   Cited 1,945 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that due process concerns related to personal jurisdiction are alleviated where the defendant has consented to service

  8. Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc.

    356 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,346 times
    Holding that the plaintiff's admittedly "opaque" allegations of discriminatory retaliation were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss

  9. Purdue Research v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A

    338 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2003)   Cited 1,184 times
    Holding that stream-of-commerce theory "is relevant only to the exercise of specific jurisdiction; it provides no basis for exercising general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant"

  10. DiLeo v. Ernst Young

    901 F.2d 624 (7th Cir. 1990)   Cited 1,599 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding accountants owe no duty "to search and sing"

  11. 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 357,280 times   950 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 99,883 times   136 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

  13. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 72,180 times   128 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

  14. Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1367   Cited 64,060 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"

  15. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 39,838 times   331 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  16. Section 2201 - Creation of remedy

    28 U.S.C. § 2201   Cited 24,976 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts the authority to create a remedy with the force of a final judgment

  17. Section 1962 - Prohibited activities

    18 U.S.C. § 1962   Cited 16,161 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Specifying prohibited activities

  18. Section 1961 - Definitions

    18 U.S.C. § 1961   Cited 15,143 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include

  19. Section 1341 - Frauds and swindles

    18 U.S.C. § 1341   Cited 13,607 times   104 Legal Analyses
    Relating to mail fraud

  20. Section 1964 - Civil remedies

    18 U.S.C. § 1964   Cited 6,190 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Granting civil remedies for RICO violation