Keren Matana v. Merkin et al

MEMORANDUM & OPINION: Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint is granted. Plaintiff's motion to strike is granted in part, and denied in part. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend its holder claim and its breach of implied contractual duty claim. If plaintiff wishes to file an Amended Complaint, it must do so no later than August 20, 2013. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at docket numbers 12 and 15.

83 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 260,142 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 273,590 times 368 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing
Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (1962) Cited 29,223 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
Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs
498 U.S. 89 (1990) Cited 4,600 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a statutory time limit with the same characteristics is subject to equitable tolling
Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.
282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 6,388 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"
ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd.
493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2007) Cited 3,947 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"
McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp.
482 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2007) Cited 3,276 times
Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend where "discovery had closed, defendants had filed for summary judgment, and nearly two years had passed since the filing of the original complaint"
DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C.
622 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 2,455 times
Holding that "[i]n considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b), a district court may consider . . . documents incorporated by reference in the complaint" and any document "where the complaint relies heavily upon its terms and effect, thereby rendering the document integral to the complaint"
American Pipe Construction Co. v. Utah
414 U.S. 538 (1974) Cited 2,141 times 162 Legal Analyses
Holding the commencement of a class action "suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action"
Crown, Cork Seal Co. v. Parker
462 U.S. 345 (1983) Cited 1,114 times 54 Legal Analyses
Holding that the timely filing of a purported class action suit tolls the statute of limitations for putative class members who seek to either intervene in the suit or file their own individual lawsuits after class action certification has been denied
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 92,835 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
Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 Cited 39,551 times 328 Legal Analyses
Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,573 times 1241 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"
Section 213 - Actions to be commenced within six years: where not otherwise provided for; on contract; on sealed instrument; on bond or note, and mortgage upon real property; by state based on misappropriation of public property; based on mistake; by corporation against director, officer or stockholder; based on fraud
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213 Cited 5,529 times 8 Legal Analyses
Applying six-year statute of limitations to actions "for which no limitation is specifically prescribed by law"
Section 214 - Actions to be commenced within three years: for non-payment of money collected on execution; for penalty created by statute; to recover chattel; for injury to property; for personal injury; for malpractice other than medical, dental or podiatric malpractice; to annul a marriage on the ground of fraud
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214 Cited 5,484 times 3 Legal Analyses
Providing for three-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions
Section 201 - Application of article
N.Y. CPLR 201 Cited 407 times
Allowing a "shorter time [to be] prescribed by written agreement"

Keren Matana v. Merkin et al

83 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

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

Holding that a statutory time limit with the same characteristics is subject to equitable tolling

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"

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"

Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend where "discovery had closed, defendants had filed for summary judgment, and nearly two years had passed since the filing of the original complaint"

Holding the commencement of a class action "suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action"

Holding that the timely filing of a purported class action suit tolls the statute of limitations for putative class members who seek to either intervene in the suit or file their own individual lawsuits after class action certification has been denied

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

Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

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"

Applying six-year statute of limitations to actions "for which no limitation is specifically prescribed by law"

Providing for three-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions

Allowing a "shorter time [to be] prescribed by written agreement"