32 Cited authorities

Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.
501 U.S. 32 (1991) Cited 9,363 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts "may bar from the courtroom a criminal defendant who disrupts a trial" may "assess attorney fees when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons," and "may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute"
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"
Roth v. Jennings
489 F.3d 499 (2d Cir. 2007) Cited 1,420 times
Holding that dismissal of a Section 16 suit for disgorgement of short-swing profits was unjustified when there were allegations that a loan had been made to a borrower in furtherance of an agreement between the lender and the borrower "to work together to effect a change of control or similar transaction involving [the company whose shares were purchased with the borrowed money]"
Glob. Network Commc'ns v. City of N.Y
458 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 1,338 times
Holding that courts may consider extrinsic documents when deciding a motion to dismiss where “the incorporated material is a contract or other legal document containing obligations upon which the plaintiff's complaint stands or falls, but which for some reason-usually because the document, read in its entirety would undermine the legitimacy of the plaintiff's claim-was not attached to the complaint”
Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co.
228 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 970 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding on the basis of Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 that "numerical benchmark" are informative but not the "exclusive" test
Barnes v. AT&T Pension Benefit Plan
718 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (N.D. Cal. 2010) Cited 404 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Rule 12(f) motions are disfavored due to the strong policy favoring resolution on the merits
Redwood v. Dobson
476 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 2007) Cited 185 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that there is no viable § 1985 claim where there was no conspiracy
Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp.
548 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2008) Cited 129 times
Holding that a motion to dismiss should not be converted into a motion for summary judgment if the movant's motion papers can be fairly read to seek dismissal under Rule 12(b) and thus provided non-movant insufficient notice of conversion
In re Lehman Bros
650 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2011) Cited 116 times
Holding that because ratings issued by rating agencies “speak merely to the Agency's opinion of the creditworthiness of a particular security,” ratings “should be evaluated under the ‘expert’ provision of § 11, not under the ‘underwriter’ provision”
Lane v. Page
272 F.R.D. 581 (D.N.M. 2011) Cited 114 times
Holding that the affirmative defense, if substantively similar to that stated in Form 30, is adequately pled, and that a detailed explanation of the defense can be later presented in a Rule 12(b) motion
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 354,229 times 943 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 7 - Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 Cited 7,742 times 2 Legal Analyses
Defining "pleadings" for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Section 77k - Civil liabilities on account of false registration statement
15 U.S.C. § 77k Cited 2,122 times 86 Legal Analyses
Holding liable for a false registration statement "every person who was a director of . . . or partner in the issuer" at time of filing

Lighthouse Financial Group v. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group, plc et al

32 Cited authorities

Holding that courts "may bar from the courtroom a criminal defendant who disrupts a trial" may "assess attorney fees when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons," and "may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute"

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

Holding that Rule 12(f) motions are disfavored due to the strong policy favoring resolution on the merits

Holding that there is no viable § 1985 claim where there was no conspiracy

Holding that a motion to dismiss should not be converted into a motion for summary judgment if the movant's motion papers can be fairly read to seek dismissal under Rule 12(b) and thus provided non-movant insufficient notice of conversion

Holding that because ratings issued by rating agencies “speak merely to the Agency's opinion of the creditworthiness of a particular security,” ratings “should be evaluated under the ‘expert’ provision of § 11, not under the ‘underwriter’ provision”

Holding that the affirmative defense, if substantively similar to that stated in Form 30, is adequately pled, and that a detailed explanation of the defense can be later presented in a Rule 12(b) motion

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

Defining "pleadings" for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Holding liable for a false registration statement "every person who was a director of . . . or partner in the issuer" at time of filing