§Why CasetextPricing

Rudolph v. UT Starcom et al

Memorandum in Opposition to 54 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint

40 Cited authorities

  1. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 9,462 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"

  2. Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo

    544 U.S. 336 (2005)   Cited 3,618 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”

  3. In re Burlington Coat Factory

    114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997)   Cited 7,967 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

  4. 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"

  5. Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite

    396 U.S. 375 (1970)   Cited 1,416 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that causation of damages by materially misleading proxy misstatement could be established by showing that proxy solicitation was an "essential link in the accomplishment of the transaction"

  6. Sparling v. Daou

    411 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 1,311 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that scienter is an element of § 10(b) claim

  7. In re Silicon Graphics Inc.

    183 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 1,444 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that stock sales of individual defendants are only indicative of scienter where they are "dramatically out of line with prior trading practices" (quoting In re Apple Computer Sec. Litig., 886 F.2d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 1989))

  8. Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney

    403 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 705 times
    Finding that learning a company had substantially less cash than it had been led to believe material

  9. Gompper v. Visx, Inc.

    298 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 747 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that leave to amend need not be granted if it would be "a futile exercise"

  10. No. 84 Employer-Teamster v. America W. Holding

    320 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 503 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the allegations must be considered in their totality in determining whether plaintiffs have met the PSLRA standard

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 162,307 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Section 1658 - Time limitations on the commencement of civil actions arising under Acts of Congress

    28 U.S.C. § 1658   Cited 2,414 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the state-law tort period controls § 1983 actions

  13. Section 421 - General rules

    26 U.S.C. § 421   Cited 143 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) Effect of qualifying transfer If a share of stock is transferred to an individual in a transfer in respect of which the requirements of section 422(a) or 423(a) are met- (1) no income shall result at the time of the transfer of such share to the individual upon his exercise of the option with respect to such share; (2) no deduction under section 162 (relating to trade or business expenses) shall be allowable at any time to the employer corporation, a parent or subsidiary corporation of such corporation

  14. Section 422 - Incentive stock options

    26 U.S.C. § 422   Cited 101 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Governing stock options granted in connection with an individual's employment