19 Cited authorities

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 267,252 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' "
Phillips v. County of Allegheny
515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) Cited 16,864 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court need not permit a curative amendment if such amendment would be futile
Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.
316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 4,899 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court abused its discretion because "[d]ismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment"
Bonin v. Calderon
59 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 2,015 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding "that a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to amend where the movant presents no new facts but only new theories and provides no satisfactory explanation for his failure to fully develop his contentions originally"
Schreiber Distributing v. Serv-Well Furniture
806 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 2,289 times
Holding that Rule 9(b) requires the plaintiff to "state with particularity" the "circumstances constituting the fraud," including a statement of "the time, place, and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentation."
Limestone v. Village
520 F.3d 797 (7th Cir. 2008) Cited 656 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the continuing violation doctrine simply “allow suit to be delayed until a series of wrongful acts blossoms into an injury on which suit can be brought”
Lone Star Ladies Inv. Club v. Schlotzsky's
238 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2001) Cited 315 times
Holding that the district court erred in denying plaintiffs leave to file their amended securities complaint
Moore v. Baker
989 F.2d 1129 (11th Cir. 1993) Cited 134 times
Holding that "a justifying reason must be apparent for denial of a motion to amend"
Gravatt v. City of New York
226 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 66 times
In Gravatt, a journeyman dock builder, who was employed by a construction contractor retained by the City of New York to repair one of its bridges, was injured while working on a barge chartered by the contractor at a construction site.
Diamonds Plus, Inc. v. Kolber
960 F.2d 765 (8th Cir. 1992) Cited 70 times
Identifying as adequate multiple acts committed over two year span
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 90,739 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
Section 901 - Short title
33 U.S.C. § 901 Cited 4,126 times 20 Legal Analyses
This chapter may be cited as "Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act." 33 U.S.C. § 901 Mar. 4, 1927, ch. 509, §1, 44 Stat. 1424; Pub. L. 98-426, §27(d)(1), Sept. 28, 1984, 98 Stat. 1654. EDITORIAL NOTES AMENDMENTS1984- Pub. L. 98-426 substituted "Longshore" for "Longshoremen's". STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1984 AMENDMENT Pub. L. 98-426, §28(a)-(g), Sept. 28, 1984, 98 Stat. 1655, provided that:"(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the amendments
Section 905 - Exclusiveness of liability
33 U.S.C. § 905 Cited 1,877 times 6 Legal Analyses
Providing that the employer’s liability for covered injuries "shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee"
Section 902 - Definitions
33 U.S.C. § 902 Cited 1,094 times 4 Legal Analyses
Defining "employer" for LHWCA purposes
Section 904 - Liability for compensation
33 U.S.C. § 904 Cited 292 times 2 Legal Analyses
Establishing the employer's liability for compensation

Gidding et al v. Anderson et al

19 Cited authorities

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

Holding that the district court abused its discretion because "[d]ismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment"

Holding "that a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to amend where the movant presents no new facts but only new theories and provides no satisfactory explanation for his failure to fully develop his contentions originally"

Holding that Rule 9(b) requires the plaintiff to "state with particularity" the "circumstances constituting the fraud," including a statement of "the time, place, and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentation."

Holding that the continuing violation doctrine simply “allow suit to be delayed until a series of wrongful acts blossoms into an injury on which suit can be brought”

Holding that the district court erred in denying plaintiffs leave to file their amended securities complaint

Holding that "a justifying reason must be apparent for denial of a motion to amend"

In Gravatt, a journeyman dock builder, who was employed by a construction contractor retained by the City of New York to repair one of its bridges, was injured while working on a barge chartered by the contractor at a construction site.

Identifying as adequate multiple acts committed over two year span

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

Providing that the employer’s liability for covered injuries "shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee"

Defining "employer" for LHWCA purposes

Establishing the employer's liability for compensation