§Why CasetextPricing

Patti, et al v. Xerox Corp, et al

Memorandum in Support re MOTION to Dismiss Counts I-III and Prayer for Injunctive Relief

20 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 284,187 times   370 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

  2. McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp.

    482 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 3,426 times
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend where "discovery had closed, defendants had filed for summary judgment, and nearly two years had passed since the filing of the original complaint"

  3. Nechis v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc.

    421 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 616 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding insurer need not disclose its cost-reduction strategies because it had "no duty to disclose to plan participants information additional to that required by ERISA"

  4. Hirsch v. Arthur Andersen Company

    72 F.3d 1085 (2d Cir. 1995)   Cited 689 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claims “are the property of those investors, and may be asserted only by them and to the exclusion of [the Trustee]”

  5. Grandon v. Merrill Lynch Co., Inc.

    147 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 1998)   Cited 399 times
    Holding that, in assessing whether markups on municipal bonds are excessive, "courts should begin with the factors set forth under MSRB (Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board) Rule G-30."

  6. Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp.

    425 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 222 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there is no heightened pleading standard in antitrust cases brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act

  7. Coleman v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co.

    969 F.2d 54 (4th Cir. 1992)   Cited 282 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "any modification to a plan must be implemented in conformity with the formal amendment procedures and must be in writing"

  8. Peregrine Myanmar Ltd. v. Segal

    89 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1996)   Cited 242 times
    Holding that a parallel suit brought by the same plaintiff against different defendants in Hong Kong did not suggest that a United States venue was inconvenient

  9. Waldman Pub. Corp. v. Landoll, Inc.

    43 F.3d 775 (2d Cir. 1994)   Cited 231 times
    Holding that “[t]he law requires more than a modicum of originality. This has been interpreted to require a distinguishable variation that is more than merely trivial.”

  10. Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Bayer AG

    14 F.3d 733 (2d Cir. 1994)   Cited 151 times
    Holding that a prior or senior user of an unregistered mark can obtain cancellation of a junior user's registration

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 166,425 times   198 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Rule 65 - Injunctions and Restraining Orders

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 65   Cited 24,009 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice

  13. Section 1001 - Congressional findings and declaration of policy

    29 U.S.C. § 1001   Cited 20,877 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Noting that ERISA was enacted “to protect ... employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries”