38 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 251,689 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 265,662 times 364 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' "
Papasan v. Allain
478 U.S. 265 (1986) Cited 16,637 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that Ex parte Young would not support a suit against a state for ongoing liability for an alleged past breach of trust, since "continuing payment of the income from the lost corpus is essentially equivalent in economic terms to a one-time restoration of the lost corpus itself"
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams
482 U.S. 386 (1987) Cited 11,192 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the rule that a federal defense does not suffice to show that a claim arises under federal law applies "even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue"
Conley v. Gibson
355 U.S. 41 (1957) Cited 58,446 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"
Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs. LLC
565 U.S. 368 (2012) Cited 646 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that "Congress did not deprive federal courts of federal-question jurisdiction over private TCPA suits"
Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc.
565 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009) Cited 2,072 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that warnings "d[id] not qualify as meaningful cautionary language" because they "did not disclose that defendants knew from past experience that the [risks] posed an imminent threat of business and financial ruin and that some damage from these risks had already materialized"
Plotkin v. IP Axess Inc.
407 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 2005) Cited 935 times
Holding that a plaintiff must plead with “specificity as to the statements (or omissions) considered to be fraudulent, the speaker, when and why the statements were made, and an explanation of why they were fraudulent.”
Doe v. Myspace
528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008) Cited 760 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that CDA bars claims for negligence and gross negligence in not preventing a 13 year old girl from lying about her age to create a personal profile that led to contact by a sexual predator
Guidry v. American Pub. Ins. Co.
512 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2007) Cited 544 times
Finding the insurer's arguments suspect because it changed the way it interpreted "actual charges" and then alleged the phrase was not ambiguous
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 344,767 times 920 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 155,637 times 193 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 1331 - Federal question
28 U.S.C. § 1331 Cited 97,102 times 133 Legal Analyses
Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction
28 U.S.C. § 1367 Cited 61,532 times 78 Legal Analyses
Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"
Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions
28 U.S.C. § 1441 Cited 49,888 times 149 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the ... laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.”
Section 1692 - Congressional findings and declaration of purpose
15 U.S.C. § 1692 Cited 14,979 times 139 Legal Analyses
Finding that abusive debt-collection practices lead to "personal bankruptcies," "marital instability," "loss of jobs," and "invasions of individual privacy"
Section 1692k - Civil liability
15 U.S.C. § 1692k Cited 6,102 times 65 Legal Analyses
Holding debt collectors civilly liable for illicit debt collection practices
Section 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment
47 U.S.C. § 227 Cited 5,644 times 733 Legal Analyses
Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals
Rule 68 - Offer of Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 Cited 3,822 times 163 Legal Analyses
Granting costs incurred after plaintiff rejected less favorable offer by defendant
Section 1692d - Harassment or abuse
15 U.S.C. § 1692d Cited 1,895 times 22 Legal Analyses
Limiting debt collectors’ ability to use threats of violence, publicize lists of consumers allegedly refusing to pay debts, cause a telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously, or engage someone in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously

Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

38 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 Ex parte Young would not support a suit against a state for ongoing liability for an alleged past breach of trust, since "continuing payment of the income from the lost corpus is essentially equivalent in economic terms to a one-time restoration of the lost corpus itself"

Holding that the rule that a federal defense does not suffice to show that a claim arises under federal law applies "even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue"

Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"

Holding that "Congress did not deprive federal courts of federal-question jurisdiction over private TCPA suits"

Holding that warnings "d[id] not qualify as meaningful cautionary language" because they "did not disclose that defendants knew from past experience that the [risks] posed an imminent threat of business and financial ruin and that some damage from these risks had already materialized"

Holding that a plaintiff must plead with “specificity as to the statements (or omissions) considered to be fraudulent, the speaker, when and why the statements were made, and an explanation of why they were fraudulent.”

Holding that CDA bars claims for negligence and gross negligence in not preventing a 13 year old girl from lying about her age to create a personal profile that led to contact by a sexual predator

Finding the insurer's arguments suspect because it changed the way it interpreted "actual charges" and then alleged the phrase was not ambiguous

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

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

Holding that “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the ... laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.”

Finding that abusive debt-collection practices lead to "personal bankruptcies," "marital instability," "loss of jobs," and "invasions of individual privacy"

Holding debt collectors civilly liable for illicit debt collection practices

Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals

Granting costs incurred after plaintiff rejected less favorable offer by defendant

Limiting debt collectors’ ability to use threats of violence, publicize lists of consumers allegedly refusing to pay debts, cause a telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously, or engage someone in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously