§Why CasetextPricing

Stanaford v. Genovese et al

Memorandum in Support of MOTION TO DISMISS 88 Amended Complaint, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

26 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 266,062 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 279,145 times   369 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

  3. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 9,523 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"

  4. Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo

    544 U.S. 336 (2005)   Cited 3,625 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”

  5. Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.

    561 U.S. 247 (2010)   Cited 1,511 times   178 Legal Analyses
    Holding extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction

  6. Basic Inc. v. Levinson

    485 U.S. 224 (1988)   Cited 3,412 times   313 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance

  7. Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.

    552 U.S. 148 (2008)   Cited 1,216 times   80 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the fraud-on-the-market presumption did not apply because business partners' "deceptive acts were not communicated to the public"

  8. American Dental Assoc. v. Cigna Corp.

    605 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2010)   Cited 1,630 times
    Holding that the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' § 1962(c) claims because plaintiffs had not sufficiently pled the acts of mail and wire fraud alleged to form a pattern of racketeering activity

  9. La Grasta v. First Union Securities, Inc.

    358 F.3d 840 (11th Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,395 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds is "appropriate only if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that the claim is time-barred"

  10. Horsley v. Feldt

    304 F.3d 1125 (11th Cir. 2002)   Cited 1,285 times
    Holding that the doctrine of "incorporation by reference" applies to motions under Rule 12(c) just as it applies to motions under Rule 12(b) because, if it were otherwise, "the conversion clause of [Rule 12(d) ] would be too easily circumvented and disputed documents attached to an answer would have to be taken as true at the pleadings stage"

  11. 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 360,630 times   954 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 163,490 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  13. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 40,075 times   334 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity