§Why CasetextPricing

De Souza v. AstraZeneca PLC, et al.

MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Dismiss Based upon Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 9, and 12

41 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 263,477 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 276,716 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

  3. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside

    578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009)   Cited 14,432 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"

  4. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee

    531 U.S. 341 (2001)   Cited 1,207 times   82 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal drug and medical device laws pre-empted a state tort-law claim based on failure to properly communicate with the FDA

  5. In re Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc.

    311 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2002)   Cited 1,383 times
    Holding that a plaintiff must set forth the "who, what, when, where, and how" of the alleged fraud

  6. James v. City of Wilkes–Barre

    700 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 2012)   Cited 939 times
    Holding that mother who called 911 and reported that her daughter was contemplating suicide was not seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because although responding police officers urged her to accompany her daughter in the ambulance, she was free to leave at any time

  7. In re Schering Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action

    678 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2012)   Cited 732 times
    Holding that the "Complaint's federal and New Jersey RICO Claims parallel each other, and because the two RICO statutes are intended to be coextensive, we follow the District Court's approach and analyze the two claims concurrently"

  8. Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster

    45 F.3d 780 (3d Cir. 1995)   Cited 981 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "where the claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so."

  9. Seville Indus Machinery v. Southmost Machinery

    742 F.2d 786 (3d Cir. 1984)   Cited 1,179 times
    Holding that Rule 9(b) does not requires a plaintiff to plead date, place, or time of alleged fraud

  10. Foglia v. Renal Ventures Mgmt., Llc.

    754 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 2014)   Cited 311 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff alleging fraudulent scheme need not plead representative sample of fraud

  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 357,835 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. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 162,084 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  13. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 39,880 times   331 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  14. Section 2-604 - Private cause of action

    Md. Code, Health-Gen. § 2-604   Cited 15 times

    (a) (1) (i) A person may file a civil action on behalf of the person and the State in a court of competent jurisdiction within the State against a person who has acted or is acting in violation of § 2-602(a) of this subtitle. (ii) A civil action filed under subparagraph (i) of this paragraph shall be brought in the name of the State. (2) A person filing an action under this section may seek: (i) The penalties provided under § 2-602(b) of this subtitle; and (ii) Subject to the guidelines set forth

  15. Section 15C.01 - DEFINITIONS

    Minn. Stat. § 15C.01   Cited 13 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Subdivision 1.Scope. For purposes of this chapter, the terms in this section have the meanings given them. Subd. 2.Claim. "Claim" includes a request or demand, whether under a contract or otherwise, for money or property and whether or not the state or a political subdivision has title to the money or property, that: (1) is presented to an officer, employee, or agent of the state or a political subdivision; or (2) is made to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient if the money or property is to

  16. Section 25.5-4-306 - Civil actions for false medicaid claims

    Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25.5-4-306   Cited 6 times

    (1)Responsibility of attorney general. The attorney general shall diligently investigate a violation under section 25.5-4-305. If the attorney general finds that a person has violated or is violating section 25.5-4-305, the attorney general may bring a civil action under this section against the person. (2)Actions by private persons. (a) A relator may bring a civil action for a violation of section 25.5-4-305 on behalf of the relator and the state. The action shall be brought in the name of the state

  17. Section 685.1 - Definitions

    Iowa Code § 685.1   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    1."Claim" means any request or demand, whether pursuant to a contract or otherwise, for money or property and whether the state has title to the money or property, which is presented to an officer, employee, agent, or other representative of the state or to a contractor, grantee, or other person if the money or property is to be spent or used on the state's behalf or to advance a state program or interest, and if the state provides any portion of the money or property which is requested or demanded

  18. Section 25.5-4-305 - False medicaid claims - liability for certain acts

    Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25.5-4-305   Cited 4 times

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person is liable to the state for a civil penalty of not less than five thousand five hundred dollars and not more than eleven thousand dollars; except that these upper and lower limits on liability shall automatically increase to equal the civil penalty allowed under the federal "False Claims Act", 31 U.S.C. sec. 3729, et seq., if and as the penalties in such federal act may be adjusted for inflation as described in said act in

  19. Section 15C.05 - PRIVATE REMEDIES; COMPLAINT UNDER SEAL; COPY OF COMPLAINT AND WRITTEN DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE TO BE SENT TO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

    Minn. Stat. § 15C.05   Cited 4 times
    Stating procedural requirements

  20. Section 2-602 - False or fraudulent claims

    Md. Code, Health-Gen. § 2-602   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) A person may not: (1) Knowingly present or cause to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval; (2) Knowingly make, use, or cause to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim; (3) Conspire to commit a violation under this subtitle; (4) Have possession, custody, or control of money or other property used by or on behalf of the State under a State health plan or a State health program and knowingly deliver or cause to be delivered