61 Cited authorities

Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (1962) Cited 29,475 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an appeal was improperly dismissed when the record as a whole — including a timely but incomplete notice of appeal and a premature but complete notice — revealed the orders petitioner sought to appeal
Basic Inc. v. Levinson
485 U.S. 224 (1988) Cited 3,401 times 312 Legal Analyses
Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance
Ernst Ernst v. Hochfelder
425 U.S. 185 (1976) Cited 3,517 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that Section 9(f) “contains a state-of-mind condition requiring something more than negligence”
In re Burlington Coat Factory
114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997) Cited 7,962 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court may consider a "document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint" when deciding a motion to dismiss
TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.
426 U.S. 438 (1976) Cited 2,517 times 69 Legal Analyses
Holding that materiality may be resolved at summary judgment "if the established omissions are so obviously important to an investor that reasonable minds cannot differ on the question of materiality"
Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA
317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 4,322 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Rule 9(b) pleading standards apply to California CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims because, though fraud is not an essential element of those statutes, a plaintiff alleges a fraudulent course of conduct as the basis of those claims
Herman MacLean v. Huddleston
459 U.S. 375 (1983) Cited 1,320 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that an express remedy under § 11 of the 1933 Act for misleading registration statements did not preclude an overlapping implied private cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation under § 10(b) of the 1934 Act
Virginia Bankshares, Inc. v. Sandberg
501 U.S. 1083 (1991) Cited 619 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 14 liability may not be established on "mere disbelief or undisclosed motive without any demonstration that the proxy statement was false or misleading"
Mayer v. Mylod
988 F.2d 635 (6th Cir. 1993) Cited 1,386 times
Holding that opinions are actionable under § 10(b) when “the speaker does not believe the opinion and the opinion is not factually well-grounded”
Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co.
228 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 979 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding on the basis of Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 that "numerical benchmark" are informative but not the "exclusive" test
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 357,835 times 950 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 162,084 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Parkside Capital LLC v. Constar International, Inc. et al

61 Cited authorities

Holding that an appeal was improperly dismissed when the record as a whole — including a timely but incomplete notice of appeal and a premature but complete notice — revealed the orders petitioner sought to appeal

Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance

Holding that Section 9(f) “contains a state-of-mind condition requiring something more than negligence”

Holding that a court may consider a "document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint" when deciding a motion to dismiss

Holding that materiality may be resolved at summary judgment "if the established omissions are so obviously important to an investor that reasonable minds cannot differ on the question of materiality"

Holding that the Rule 9(b) pleading standards apply to California CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims because, though fraud is not an essential element of those statutes, a plaintiff alleges a fraudulent course of conduct as the basis of those claims

Holding that an express remedy under § 11 of the 1933 Act for misleading registration statements did not preclude an overlapping implied private cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation under § 10(b) of the 1934 Act

Holding that § 14 liability may not be established on "mere disbelief or undisclosed motive without any demonstration that the proxy statement was false or misleading"

Holding that opinions are actionable under § 10(b) when “the speaker does not believe the opinion and the opinion is not factually well-grounded”

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

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. . . ."