25 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 262,920 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 276,185 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
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.
534 U.S. 506 (2002) Cited 17,213 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding with regard to a 67-year-old plaintiff and a 59-year-old comparator that " difference of eight years between the age of the person discharged and his replacement . . . is not insignificant"
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
439 U.S. 322 (1979) Cited 4,285 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair
Scott v. Kuhlmann
746 F.2d 1377 (9th Cir. 1984) Cited 398 times
Holding that affirmative defenses may not be asserted on a motion to dismiss if they raise disputed issues of fact
Yamaha Corp. of America v. U.S.
961 F.2d 245 (D.C. Cir. 1992) Cited 309 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that issue preclusion would be unfair if applied "when the losing party clearly lacked any incentive to litigate the point in the first trial"
Weinberger v. Tucker
510 F.3d 486 (4th Cir. 2007) Cited 92 times
Holding that Virginia law controlled the preclusive effects of the first diversity action
Concordia v. Bendekovic
693 F.2d 1073 (11th Cir. 1982) Cited 129 times
Finding that the court will not take judicial notice of records in another case unless prior proceedings are introduced into evidence
Boone v. Kurtz
617 F.2d 435 (5th Cir. 1980) Cited 133 times
Holding that even though Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 denominates res judicata as an affirmative defense the doctrine may be invoked sua sponte by a court "in the interest of judicial economy where both actions were brought before the same court"
Flagg v. City of Detroit
252 F.R.D. 346 (E.D. Mich. 2008) Cited 54 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that although the SCA prohibited a phone company's disclosure pursuant to a civil discovery subpoena, the plaintiff could obtain the same information by serving a request for production of documents on the defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 161,761 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 98,841 times 678 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 34 - Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 Cited 13,553 times 153 Legal Analyses
Finding that the rules related to electronic discovery were "not meant to create a routine right of direct access to a party's electronic information system, although such access may be justified in some circumstances."
Rule 7 - Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 Cited 7,830 times 2 Legal Analyses
Defining "pleadings" for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S. et al v. MTN Group, Ltd. et al

25 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

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

Holding with regard to a 67-year-old plaintiff and a 59-year-old comparator that " difference of eight years between the age of the person discharged and his replacement . . . is not insignificant"

Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

Holding that affirmative defenses may not be asserted on a motion to dismiss if they raise disputed issues of fact

Holding that issue preclusion would be unfair if applied "when the losing party clearly lacked any incentive to litigate the point in the first trial"

Holding that Virginia law controlled the preclusive effects of the first diversity action

Finding that the court will not take judicial notice of records in another case unless prior proceedings are introduced into evidence

Holding that even though Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 denominates res judicata as an affirmative defense the doctrine may be invoked sua sponte by a court "in the interest of judicial economy where both actions were brought before the same court"

Holding that although the SCA prohibited a phone company's disclosure pursuant to a civil discovery subpoena, the plaintiff could obtain the same information by serving a request for production of documents on the defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Finding that the rules related to electronic discovery were "not meant to create a routine right of direct access to a party's electronic information system, although such access may be justified in some circumstances."

Defining "pleadings" for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure