§Why CasetextPricing

Modern Settings LLC et al v. Basf Metals Limited et al

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 115 MOTION to Dismiss Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. . Document

73 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 252,784 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 266,697 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. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

    475 U.S. 574 (1986)   Cited 113,131 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

  4. Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo

    544 U.S. 336 (2005)   Cited 3,550 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”

  5. Associated General Contractors v. Carpenters

    459 U.S. 519 (1983)   Cited 5,033 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union lacked standing to sue for injuries passed on to it by intermediaries

  6. Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.

    561 U.S. 247 (2010)   Cited 1,458 times   177 Legal Analyses
    Holding extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction

  7. Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.

    552 U.S. 148 (2008)   Cited 1,181 times   80 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the fraud-on-the-market presumption did not apply because business partners' "deceptive acts were not communicated to the public"

  8. ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd.

    493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 3,874 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that deception occurs when "investors are misled to believe that prices at which they purchase and sell securities are determined by the natural interplay of supply and demand, not rigged by manipulators"

  9. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.

    569 U.S. 108 (2013)   Cited 473 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the ATS does not authorize an action for a tort that occurred entirely outside of the United States

  10. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co.

    495 U.S. 328 (1990)   Cited 835 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an antitrust injury is an injury that is "attributable to an anti-competitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny"

  11. 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 345,981 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

  12. Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1367   Cited 61,786 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"

  13. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 38,931 times   316 Legal Analyses
    Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"

  14. Section 2 - Jurisdiction of Commission; liability of principal for act of agent; Commodity Futures Trading Commission; transaction in interstate commerce

    7 U.S.C. § 2   Cited 511 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Adopting respondeat superior principles for regulatory actions brought by the Commodity Exchange Commission

  15. Section 9 - Prohibition regarding manipulation and false information

    7 U.S.C. § 9   Cited 301 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing the CFTC to seek to prohibit from future trading any person who "has willfully made any false or misleading statement of a material fact in any registration application or any report filed with the Commission"

  16. Section 25 - Private rights of action

    7 U.S.C. § 25   Cited 276 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Granting federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over private claims brought under the CEA

  17. Section 13 - Violations generally; punishment; costs of prosecution

    7 U.S.C. § 13   Cited 261 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Pertaining to punishment for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act

  18. Section 13c - Responsibility as principal; minor violations

    7 U.S.C. § 13c   Cited 166 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Aiding and abetting

  19. Section 180.1 - Prohibition on the employment, or attempted employment, of manipulative and deceptive devices

    17 C.F.R. § 180.1   Cited 103 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Focusing on the use or employment, or attempted use or employment of any manipulative device, scheme, or artifice to defraud in connection with, as relevant here, any swap