§Why CasetextPricing

Twardy, et al v. Priceline.com, Inc, et al

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION granting in part and denying in part 70 Motion to Dismiss, granting 67 Motion to Dismiss . Signed

36 Cited authorities

  1. Hishon v. King Spalding

    467 U.S. 69 (1984)   Cited 12,461 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding Title VII applies to selection for non-employee positions if consideration for that position can be regarded as one of "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" of a covered job

  2. Scheuer v. Rhodes

    416 U.S. 232 (1974)   Cited 22,353 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that executive branch officers had qualified immunity

  3. Basic Inc. v. Levinson

    485 U.S. 224 (1988)   Cited 3,355 times   308 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance

  4. Lampf v. Gilbertson

    501 U.S. 350 (1991)   Cited 1,114 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding comparable bar not subject to equitable tolling

  5. Novak v. Kasaks

    216 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 1,599 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding section 78u-4(b) does not literally require pleading of all facts, so long as facts pleaded provide adequate basis for believing statements were false

  6. Shields v. Citytrust Bancorp, Inc.

    25 F.3d 1124 (2d Cir. 1994)   Cited 1,822 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that scienter cannot be "base[d] . . . on speculation and conclusory allegations"

  7. Rothman v. Gregor

    220 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 1,327 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the date of the filing of the motion to amend constitutes the date the action was commenced for statute of limitations purposes" when "the plaintiff seeks to add a new defendant" (quoting Nw. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Alberts , 769 F. Supp. 498, 510 (S.D.N.Y.1991) )

  8. Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co.

    228 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 962 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding on the basis of Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 that "numerical benchmark" are informative but not the "exclusive" test

  9. Goldman v. Belden

    754 F.2d 1059 (2d Cir. 1985)   Cited 1,659 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding Rule 12(b) consideration of documents attached to defendants' motion to dismiss improper

  10. Bernheim v. Litt

    79 F.3d 318 (2d Cir. 1996)   Cited 879 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims"

  11. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 39,098 times   320 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  12. Section 78j - Manipulative and deceptive devices

    15 U.S.C. § 78j   Cited 12,534 times   165 Legal Analyses
    Granting SEC power to establish rules to further statute forbidding manipulative or deceptive devices in connection with purchase or sale of securities

  13. Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-4   Cited 7,498 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

  14. Section 78u-5 - Application of safe harbor for forward-looking statements

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-5   Cited 1,262 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Listing as an exclusion from the safe harbor "forward-looking statement in connection with a going private transaction"

  15. Section 240.10b-5 - Employment of manipulative and deceptive devices

    17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5   Cited 9,224 times   134 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any person who "make any untrue statement of material fact"