§Why CasetextPricing

Guan v. Ran et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim in Amended Complaint

37 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 255,203 times   280 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 268,949 times   367 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. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 9,194 times   104 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"

  4. Medimmune, Inc. v. GenenTech, Inc.

    549 U.S. 118 (2007)   Cited 2,561 times   90 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the phrase 'case of actual controversy' in the Act refers to the types of 'Cases' and 'Controversies' that are justiciable under Article III"

  5. Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.

    515 U.S. 277 (1995)   Cited 4,312 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in declaratory judgment actions, district courts have “greater” discretion to abstain than under Colorado River's “exceptional circumstances” test

  6. Philips v. Pitt Cty. Memorial Hosp

    572 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2009)   Cited 3,740 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts “may properly take judicial notice of matters of public record”

  7. Eastern Shore Markets, Inc. v. J.D. Associates Ltd. Partnership

    213 F.3d 175 (4th Cir. 2000)   Cited 2,114 times
    Holding that review of order granting motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) is de novo

  8. Crandon v. United States

    494 U.S. 152 (1990)   Cited 494 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that meaning of statute is to be determined from design of statute as whole and its object and policy, in addition to its language

  9. Public Serv. Comm'n v. Wycoff Co.

    344 U.S. 237 (1952)   Cited 1,338 times
    Holding that federal "judicial power does not extend to abstract questions" and the dispute in a particular case "must not be nebulous or contingent but must have taken on fixed and final shape" (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)

  10. Velez v. Sanchez

    693 F.3d 308 (2d Cir. 2012)   Cited 105 times
    Holding that Statute of Frauds applies to promise to pay for college education of at-will employee's child because value of obligation not "'fixed within a year'" (quoting Cron)

  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 348,503 times   930 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 2201 - Creation of remedy

    28 U.S.C. § 2201   Cited 24,639 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts the authority to create a remedy with the force of a final judgment

  13. Section 1581 - Peonage; obstructing enforcement

    18 U.S.C. § 1581   Cited 621 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding in peonage

  14. Section 1184 - Admission of nonimmigrants

    8 U.S.C. § 1184   Cited 600 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Creating exceptions to caps, including separate quota of 20,000 for nonimmigrants with master's or higher degree

  15. Section 1590 - Trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor

    18 U.S.C. § 1590   Cited 223 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting "transport[ing] ... any person for labor or services in violation of this chapter"

  16. Section 7102 - Definitions

    22 U.S.C. § 7102   Cited 68 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Describing "sex trafficking . . . in which the person induced to perform [a commercial sex act] has not attained 18 years of age," as a "severe form[] of trafficking in persons"

  17. Section 5304 - Locality-based comparability payments

    5 U.S.C. § 5304   Cited 11 times

    (a) Pay disparities shall be identified and reduced as follows: (1) Comparability payments shall be payable within each locality determined to have a pay disparity greater than 5 percent. (2) (A) The localities having pay disparities, and the size of those disparities, shall, for purposes of any comparability payment scheduled to take effect in any calendar year, be determined in accordance with the appropriate report, as prepared and submitted to the President under subsection (d)(1) for purposes