111 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 254,776 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
  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 268,550 times   366 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' "
  3. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor

    521 U.S. 591 (1997)   Cited 6,982 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval
  4. Foman v. Davis

    371 U.S. 178 (1962)   Cited 28,792 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an appeal was improperly dismissed when the record as a whole — including a timely but incomplete notice of appeal and a premature but complete notice — revealed the orders petitioner sought to appeal
  5. Warth v. Seldin

    422 U.S. 490 (1975)   Cited 11,922 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Article III requires plaintiffs "to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions"
  6. Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon

    457 U.S. 147 (1982)   Cited 5,693 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that named plaintiff must prove “much more than the validity of his own claim”; the individual plaintiff must show that “the individual's claim and the class claims will share common questions of law or fact and that the individual's claim will be typical of the class claims,” explicitly referencing the “commonality” and “typicality” requirements of Rule 23
  7. Harris v. Mills

    572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 6,610 times
    Holding that notice and opportunity to be heard before deprivation of constitutionally protected interest coupled with Article 78 post-deprivation remedy satisfied due process
  8. Hill v. Curcione

    657 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2011)   Cited 2,875 times
    Holding that a claim of deliberate medical indifference failed where plaintiff was afforded adequate treatment
  9. Ruotolo v. City of N.Y

    514 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2008)   Cited 2,117 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party seeking to amend pursuant to a Rule 59 or Rule 60 motion "must first have the judgment vacated or set aside" under those Rules
  10. Lucente v. International Bus. Machines Corp.

    310 F.3d 243 (2d Cir. 2002)   Cited 1,434 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the New York rule does not apply in breach of contract cases
  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 348,046 times   927 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
  12. Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 111,968 times   572 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"
  13. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 91,153 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
  14. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 69,641 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
  15. Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1367   Cited 62,194 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"
  16. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 35,108 times   1237 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"
  17. Rule 21 - Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 21   Cited 7,472 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts broad discretion when deciding whether to sever claims or to dismiss improperly joined claims or defendants
  18. Section 1194 - Recovery by employee in civil action regardless of agreement to receive lesser wage

    Cal. Lab. Code § 1194   Cited 1,758 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing an employee receiving less than the legal overtime compensation to recover the unpaid balance, interest, attorney's fees, and costs of suit in a civil action
  19. Section 510 - Eight hour workday; compensation for overtime

    Cal. Lab. Code § 510   Cited 1,600 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Requiring employers to pay 1.5 times the "regular rate of pay" for overtime
  20. Section 256 - Determination of commencement of future actions

    29 U.S.C. § 256   Cited 917 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Providing that an opt-in plaintiff's action commences, for purposes of the limitations period, when he files his written consent to join