39 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 252,626 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
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 266,542 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' "
Rothman v. Gregor
220 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 1,322 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the date of the filing of the motion to amend constitutes the date the action was commenced for statute of limitations purposes" when "the plaintiff seeks to add a new defendant" (quoting Nw. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Alberts , 769 F. Supp. 498, 510 (S.D.N.Y.1991) )
Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co.
228 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 959 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding on the basis of Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 that "numerical benchmark" are informative but not the "exclusive" test
Kalnit v. Eichler
264 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 844 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that where a complaint “does not present facts indicating a clear duty to disclose” it does not establish “ strong evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness”
Deluca v. Accessit Group, Inc.
695 F. Supp. 2d 54 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) Cited 493 times
Holding for a document to be incorporated by reference, “the complaint must make ‘a clear, definite and substantial reference to the documents'”
Merrill Lynch v. Allegheny Energy
500 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2007) Cited 514 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "resolution of legal questions, including jurisdiction and the right to a jury trial, are subject to de novo review"
Chill v. General Electric Company
101 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 650 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that general motives that can "be imputed to any publicly-owned, for-profit endeavor, [are] not sufficiently concrete for purposes of inferring scienter"
Teams. Local 445 v. Dynex Cap
531 F.3d 190 (2d Cir. 2008) Cited 447 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs failed to allege corporate scienter where they did not specifically identify reports or statements to which the corporate officer had access that would have contradicted the allegedly fraudulent corporate statements at issue
Luce v. Edelstein
802 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1986) Cited 735 times
Holding that the plaintiff's failure to connect allegations of fraudulent representations to particular defendants, attributing representations simply to the “defendants,” could not satisfy Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement
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 345,805 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
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 90,505 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 38,918 times 316 Legal Analyses
Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"

King County, Washington, et al v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG et al

39 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

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 "the date of the filing of the motion to amend constitutes the date the action was commenced for statute of limitations purposes" when "the plaintiff seeks to add a new defendant" (quoting Nw. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Alberts , 769 F. Supp. 498, 510 (S.D.N.Y.1991) )

Holding on the basis of Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 that "numerical benchmark" are informative but not the "exclusive" test

Holding that where a complaint “does not present facts indicating a clear duty to disclose” it does not establish “ strong evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness”

Holding for a document to be incorporated by reference, “the complaint must make ‘a clear, definite and substantial reference to the documents'”

Holding that "resolution of legal questions, including jurisdiction and the right to a jury trial, are subject to de novo review"

Holding that general motives that can "be imputed to any publicly-owned, for-profit endeavor, [are] not sufficiently concrete for purposes of inferring scienter"

Holding that plaintiffs failed to allege corporate scienter where they did not specifically identify reports or statements to which the corporate officer had access that would have contradicted the allegedly fraudulent corporate statements at issue

Holding that the plaintiff's failure to connect allegations of fraudulent representations to particular defendants, attributing representations simply to the “defendants,” could not satisfy Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

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

Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"