27 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 254,855 times 279 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 268,629 times 366 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' "
Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.
567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 2,273 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity
Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.
552 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 1,329 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[m]ere conclusory allegations" about the resignations of company executives did not, without more, give rise to a strong inference of scienter
Bonin v. Calderon
59 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 2,022 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding "that a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to amend where the movant presents no new facts but only new theories and provides no satisfactory explanation for his failure to fully develop his contentions originally"
Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc.
885 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1989) Cited 1,846 times
Holding that a complaint did not satisfy Rule 9(b) because it "d[id] not specify which plaintiff received which prospectus, or which plaintiff made purchases through the stockbroker defendants"
Bly-Magee v. California
236 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 1,153 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding leave to amend should have been "freely given" pursuant to Rule 15 even though plaintiff failed in first amended complaint to plead fraud with specificity required by Rule 9(b)
Exergen Corporation v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 679 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegation that "Exergen, its agents and/or attorneys . . . knew of the material information and deliberately withheld or misrepresented it" without naming "the specific individual associated with the filing or prosecution of the application" was not sufficiently particular to satisfy the "who" element of an inequitable conduct claim
Neubronner v. Milken
6 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 1993) Cited 793 times
Holding that Rule 9(b)'s purpose is "to prevent the filing of a complaint as a pretext for the discovery of unknown wrongs" and finding the Section 20A insufficiently pled because it lacked "facts [such] as the times, dates, places" or "allegations on information and belief . . . [to] state the factual basis for the belief"
Caviness v. Horizon Community Learning Center, Inc.
590 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 383 times
Holding that state action generally excludes "merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful"
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 348,148 times 927 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 157,408 times 196 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 91,180 times 91 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
Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 Cited 39,081 times 320 Legal Analyses
Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity
Section 292 - False marking
35 U.S.C. § 292 Cited 565 times 61 Legal Analyses
Providing cause of action and share of recovery against a person falsely marking patented articles

San Francisco Technology, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

27 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

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' "

Holding that circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity

Holding that "[m]ere conclusory allegations" about the resignations of company executives did not, without more, give rise to a strong inference of scienter

Holding "that a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to amend where the movant presents no new facts but only new theories and provides no satisfactory explanation for his failure to fully develop his contentions originally"

Holding that a complaint did not satisfy Rule 9(b) because it "d[id] not specify which plaintiff received which prospectus, or which plaintiff made purchases through the stockbroker defendants"

Holding leave to amend should have been "freely given" pursuant to Rule 15 even though plaintiff failed in first amended complaint to plead fraud with specificity required by Rule 9(b)

Holding that state action generally excludes "merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful"

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. . . ."

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

Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

Providing cause of action and share of recovery against a person falsely marking patented articles