§Why CasetextPricing

Jordan Lee v. Arcadia University et al

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

9 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 252,709 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 266,625 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' "

  3. Phillips v. County of Allegheny

    515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008)   Cited 16,822 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court need not permit a curative amendment if such amendment would be futile

  4. Ingram v. Vanguard Grp., Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-3674 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 17, 2015)   Cited 11 times
    Finding that specific allegations of an employer's discriminatory comments paired with ignored complaints and unwarranted worsening performance reviews plausibly alleged conduct that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to survive a motion to dismiss

  5. Brown v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc.

    707 F. Supp. 2d 971 (D. Minn. 2010)   Cited 15 times
    Finding that "[a]t bottom, because the charge failed to specifically identify any neutral policy, the cornerstone of an EEO disparate-impact investigation, the Court concludes that [plaintiff] did not exhaust her disparate-impact claim"

  6. Raines v. Haverford College

    849 F. Supp. 1009 (E.D. Pa. 1994)   Cited 29 times

    No. 93-CV-6969. April 12, 1994. Louis Rosner, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiff. Carol B. Trask, Dechert Price Rhoads, Philadelphia, PA, for defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOYNER, District Judge. This matter before the Court concerns defendant's motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In response, plaintiff has filed a motion to amend the complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, we

  7. Ishmael v. Sch. Dist. of Phila.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-3081 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 30, 2016)   Cited 3 times

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-3081 09-30-2016 SHIRL A. ISHMAEL Plaintiff, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA and LESLIE MASON Defendants. Jones, II J. Jones, II J. MEMORANDUM I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Shirl Ishmael commenced suit against Defendants, alleging violations of: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"); the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. ("ADA"); and, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa.C.S.A. § 951, et seq. ("PHRA")

  8. 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 345,885 times   922 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  9. Section 1981 - Equal rights under the law

    42 U.S.C. § 1981   Cited 37,873 times   236 Legal Analyses
    Granting equal rights to "make and enforce contracts" without regard to race