23 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 253,227 times 279 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 267,097 times 365 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "
Kassner v. 2nd Avenue Delicatessen Inc.
496 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2007) Cited 1,638 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that amended complaint must be "sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 12(b)"
Schiavone v. Fortune
477 U.S. 21 (1986) Cited 755 times
Holding that in order to relate back "the basic claim must have arisen out of the conduct set forth in the original pleading"
Hogan v. Fischer
738 F.3d 509 (2d Cir. 2013) Cited 1,092 times
Holding plaintiff satisfied diligence requirement after he "diligently sought to identify the John Doe defendants" and the "named defendants ... failed to respond fully to Hogan's requests"
Burnett v. N.Y. Cent. R. Co.
380 U.S. 424 (1965) Cited 1,017 times
Holding that an action filed in an improper venue tolled the FELA statute of limitations, and noting that "venue objections may be waived by the defendant"
Nechis v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc.
421 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 611 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding insurer need not disclose its cost-reduction strategies because it had "no duty to disclose to plan participants information additional to that required by ERISA"
Aslanidis v. U.S. Lines, Inc.
7 F.3d 1067 (2d Cir. 1993) Cited 742 times
Holding that "John Doe" pleadings do not get an exception to the statute of limitations—"because replacing a 'John Doe' with a named party in effect constitutes a change in the party sued"
Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dept
66 F.3d 466 (2d Cir. 1995) Cited 436 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "Rule 15(c) does not allow an amended complaint adding new defendants to relate back if the newly-added defendants were not named originally because the plaintiff did not know their identities"
In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation
466 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 221 times 37 Legal Analyses
Holding "where amendment would be futile, denial of leave to amend is proper"
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 346,412 times 923 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 90,681 times 91 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
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 69,154 times 122 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
Section 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
18 U.S.C. § 1030 Cited 3,234 times 408 Legal Analyses
Holding cellular phones are protected

Delta Pilots Association v. Doe

23 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

Holding that amended complaint must be "sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 12(b)"

Holding that in order to relate back "the basic claim must have arisen out of the conduct set forth in the original pleading"

Holding plaintiff satisfied diligence requirement after he "diligently sought to identify the John Doe defendants" and the "named defendants ... failed to respond fully to Hogan's requests"

Holding that an action filed in an improper venue tolled the FELA statute of limitations, and noting that "venue objections may be waived by the defendant"

Holding insurer need not disclose its cost-reduction strategies because it had "no duty to disclose to plan participants information additional to that required by ERISA"

Holding that "John Doe" pleadings do not get an exception to the statute of limitations—"because replacing a 'John Doe' with a named party in effect constitutes a change in the party sued"

Holding that "Rule 15(c) does not allow an amended complaint adding new defendants to relate back if the newly-added defendants were not named originally because the plaintiff did not know their identities"

Holding "where amendment would be futile, denial of leave to amend is proper"

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

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

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

Holding cellular phones are protected