§Why CasetextPricing

Ryan v. Morgan Asset Management, Inc. et al

RESPONSE to Motion re MOTION to Dismiss Response to Plaintiff's Surreply in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss

14 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. United States v. Gonzales

    520 U.S. 1 (1997)   Cited 633 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "any other term of imprisonment" includes terms imposed by state courts

  3. Sparling v. Daou

    411 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 1,310 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that scienter is an element of § 10(b) claim

  4. Braddock v. Zimmerman

    906 A.2d 776 (Del. 2006)   Cited 145 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the Rule 23.1 demand inquiry must be assessed by reference to the board in place at the time when the amended complaint is filed"

  5. Werbowsky v. Collomb

    362 Md. 581 (Md. 2001)   Cited 110 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the allegation that directors “are conflicted because of the fees they make as [company] directors, and their presumed desire to retain their directorships” does not show they were “conflicted or controlled ... to the point that a demand upon them would have been futile”

  6. Scalisi v. Fund Asset Management

    380 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 84 times
    Holding that demand was not futile where mutual fund's directors also served on the boards of 49 other funds managed by the same investment management company

  7. In re Franklin Mut. Funds Fee Litigation

    388 F. Supp. 2d 451 (D.N.J. 2005)   Cited 69 times
    Holding there is no implied private right of action to enforce §§ 34(b) and 36 of the ICA and citing other post- Sandoval and post- Olmsted cases reaching the same conclusion

  8. Strougo v. Scudder, Stevens Clark, Inc.

    964 F. Supp. 783 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)   Cited 42 times
    Holding heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b) inapplicable to a breach of fiduciary duty claim not premised on fraud

  9. Felker v. Anderson

    Case No. 04-0372-CV-W-ODS (W.D. Mo. Feb. 11, 2005)   Cited 10 times
    In Felker, the district court applied the demand futility standard articulated in Werbowsky and found that demand was excused.

  10. Caston v. Hoaglin

    Case No. 2:08-cv-200 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 23, 2009)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that a plaintiff could not establish "irreparable harm" under Maryland law, simply "by listing harms that occurred during delay he caused by waiting four months to file his amended complaint"

  11. 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. . . ."

  12. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 93,795 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

  13. Section 2-405.3 - When director of investment company deemed independent and disinterested

    Md. Code, Corp. & Ass'ns § 2-405.3   Cited 5 times

    (a) This section applies to a corporation that is an investment company, as defined by the Investment Company Act of 1940. (b) A director of a corporation who with respect to the corporation is not an interested person, as defined by the Investment Company Act of 1940, shall be deemed to be independent and disinterested when making any determination or taking any action as a director. Md. Code, CA § 2-405.3