§Why CasetextPricing

Freidus et al v. ING Group N.V. et al

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 82 MOTION to Strike Document No. 77 Exhibits B, C, E, G, H, I, Z and II.. Document

40 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 257,305 times   280 Legal Analyses
    Holding for a complaint to survive Rule 12(b), it must "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face"

  2. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 9,259 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"

  3. Basic Inc. v. Levinson

    485 U.S. 224 (1988)   Cited 3,366 times   310 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance

  4. Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.

    282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002)   Cited 6,327 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding extrinsic materials were not "integral" to the complaint because the complaint "d[id] not refer to the[m]" and "plaintiffs apparently did not rely on them in drafting it"

  5. ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd.

    493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 3,914 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because "a plaintiff must show . . . a primary violation by the controlled person" in order to "establish a prima facie case of control[-]person liability," a plaintiff who "fails to allege any primary violation . . . cannot establish control[-]person liability"

  6. Glob. Network Commc'ns v. City of N.Y

    458 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 1,315 times
    Holding that courts may consider extrinsic documents when deciding a motion to dismiss where “the incorporated material is a contract or other legal document containing obligations upon which the plaintiff's complaint stands or falls, but which for some reason-usually because the document, read in its entirety would undermine the legitimacy of the plaintiff's claim-was not attached to the complaint”

  7. Kramer v. Time Warner Inc.

    937 F.2d 767 (2d Cir. 1991)   Cited 2,001 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Court may consider matters of which judicial notice may be taken under Federal Rule of Evidence 201

  8. Staehr v. Hartford Financial Serv

    547 F.3d 406 (2d Cir. 2008)   Cited 874 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that matters judicially noticed by a court "are not considered matters outside the pleadings"

  9. Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co.

    228 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 966 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding on the basis of Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 that "numerical benchmark" are informative but not the "exclusive" test

  10. Faulkner v. Beer

    463 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 623 times
    Holding that “if a plaintiff had not received a copy of [documents referenced in the contract], then that plaintiff's claims could not be dismissed based on warnings of risk in those documents”

  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 351,086 times   937 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 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

    Fed. R. Evid. 201   Cited 28,789 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."

  13. Rule 7 - Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 7   Cited 7,674 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Defining "pleadings" for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure