§Why CasetextPricing

D'Haenens v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

RESPONSE to 18 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint

30 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 267,100 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 280,127 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. U.S. v. Dunkel

    927 F.2d 955 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 2,307 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in" the record

  4. Independent Towers of Washington v. Washington

    350 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 1,345 times
    Holding that this Court "has repeatedly admonished that we cannot 'manufacture arguments for appellant'" and will only review "issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party's opening brief."

  5. In re Glenfed, Inc. Securities Litigation

    42 F.3d 1541 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 1,728 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs may not "merely proclaim in the most conclusory of fashion that the defendants made false statements."

  6. Schneider v. California Department of Corr

    151 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,386 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding inmates “possess a constitutionally cognizable property interest” in the interest earned on money held in their prison accounts

  7. U.S. ex Rel. Robinson Rancheria v. Borneo

    971 F.2d 244 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 1,612 times
    Holding district court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions because district court incorrectly deemed plaintiff's claims frivolous

  8. Cooper v. Pickett

    122 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 1,273 times
    Holding that where complaint asserting claims of improper revenue recognition identified some of the defrauded customers, the type of conduct, the general time frame, and why the conduct was fraudulent, it was "not fatal to the complaint that it [did] not describe in detail a single specific transaction . . . by customer, amount, and precise method"

  9. Paddington Partners v. Bouchard

    34 F.3d 1132 (2d Cir. 1994)   Cited 1,090 times
    Holding that even if a Rule 56(f) motion is properly supported, a district court may refuse to allow additional discovery "if it deems the request to be based on speculation as to what potentially could be discovered."

  10. Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman

    97 Nev. 601 (Nev. 1981)   Cited 671 times
    Holding that a writ of mandamus is generally available to compel the performance of an act that the law enjoins as a duty, or to control a manifest abuse of discretion

  11. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 40,154 times   335 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  12. Section 1635 - Right of rescission as to certain transactions

    15 U.S.C. § 1635   Cited 3,351 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Granting consumers the right to rescind

  13. Section 1638 - Transactions other than under an open end credit plan

    15 U.S.C. § 1638   Cited 1,210 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Describing TILA’s disclosure requirements for consumer credit transactions