550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 269,161 times 367 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' "
510 U.S. 517 (1994) Cited 2,841 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988
Holding that although the FTCA's discretionary function exception would generally protect the creation of policies and rules, government actors do not have discretion to create unconstitutional policies
Holding that plaintiff was not prejudiced by assertion of statute of limitations defense in amended answer because the defense would have been "effective at the outset of [plaintiff's] suit."
315 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2004) Cited 123 times
Holding an answer alleging plaintiff is "barred from recovery . . . by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, and unclean hands" did not provide fair notice of affirmative defenses because it did not allege facts justifying any of these doctrines
Case No.: 10-CV-00168-LHK (N.D. Cal. Sep. 23, 2010) Cited 55 times
Finding that an "allegation ... that the Complaint [was] vague, ambitious, uncertain, and unintelligible [was] not an affirmative defense" and granting motion to strike on that basis
No. C 08-4854 PJH (N.D. Cal. May. 8, 2009) Cited 48 times
Noting that "[a]n attempt to reserve affirmative defenses for a future date is not a proper affirmative defense in itself" and that "if at some later date defendants seek to add affirmative defenses, they must comply with Rule 15"