32 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 266,691 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 279,746 times 369 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
Phillips v. County of Allegheny
515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) Cited 17,465 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court need not permit a curative amendment if such amendment would be futile
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside
578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) Cited 14,529 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion "in denying a motion for a class action determination which was untimely under the local rule"
Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.
500 U.S. 90 (1991) Cited 1,234 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding parties' legal theories not binding on Court, which "retains the independent power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law"
Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores
588 F.3d 585 (8th Cir. 2009) Cited 1,957 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding fiduciary had duty to disclose "complete and accurate material information about the Plan funds and the process by which they were selected"
Migdal v. Rowe Price-Fleming Intern., Inc.
248 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2001) Cited 717 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that “Rule 12(b) requires more than the mere recitation of boilerplate statutory language”
Burks v. Lasker
441 U.S. 471 (1979) Cited 386 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "question whether a cause of action exists is not a question of jurisdiction, and therefore may be assumed without being decided"
Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. Fox
464 U.S. 523 (1984) Cited 290 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that there is no demand prerequisite for § 36(b) claims
Krantz v. Prudential Investments Fund Mgmt
305 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2002) Cited 201 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend for a second time where the plaintiff was on notice of the deficiencies in his complaint and failed to correct them in the first amended complaint
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 163,831 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Curran v. Principal Management Corporation et al

32 Cited authorities

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

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 a district court need not permit a curative amendment if such amendment would be futile

Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion "in denying a motion for a class action determination which was untimely under the local rule"

Holding parties' legal theories not binding on Court, which "retains the independent power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law"

Holding fiduciary had duty to disclose "complete and accurate material information about the Plan funds and the process by which they were selected"

Holding that “Rule 12(b) requires more than the mere recitation of boilerplate statutory language”

Holding that the "question whether a cause of action exists is not a question of jurisdiction, and therefore may be assumed without being decided"

Holding that there is no demand prerequisite for § 36(b) claims

Finding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend for a second time where the plaintiff was on notice of the deficiencies in his complaint and failed to correct them in the first amended complaint

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