§Why CasetextPricing

Vidurek et al v. Miller et al

MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 22 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 7 Motion to Dismiss; granting 14 Motion to Dismiss. Defendant RSB's motion to dismiss the complaint is GRANTED, the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is GRANTED, and the County Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' claims against HVFCU are DISMISSED. Plaintiffs' motion to remand and motion for a default judgment are DENIED. The Clerk is directed to terminate the motions

85 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 254,433 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

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 268,213 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' "

  3. Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents

    403 U.S. 388 (1971)   Cited 25,955 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there is an implied cause of action for money damages against federal officials for violations of the Fourth Amendment

  4. Coppedge v. United States

    369 U.S. 438 (1962)   Cited 27,584 times
    Holding that a district court's certificate that an appeal is not taken in good faith "is not conclusive, although it is, of course, entitled to weight"

  5. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co.

    473 U.S. 479 (1985)   Cited 4,235 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the fact that a statute can be "applied in situations not expressly anticipated by Congress does not demonstrate ambiguity. It demonstrates breadth."

  6. Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

    470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 7,704 times
    Holding that the discretionary function doctrine does not shield a "BOP employee's failure to perform a diligent inspection out of laziness, hastiness, or inattentiveness"

  7. Harris v. Mills

    572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 6,590 times
    Holding that notice and opportunity to be heard before deprivation of constitutionally protected interest coupled with Article 78 post-deprivation remedy satisfied due process

  8. United States v. Mitchell

    463 U.S. 206 (1983)   Cited 2,638 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the Tucker Act effects a waiver of sovereign immunity" and observing that "the existence of consent [to be sued] is a prerequisite for jurisdiction"

  9. United States v. Nordic Village, Inc.

    503 U.S. 30 (1992)   Cited 1,789 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the existence of "plausible" interpretations that would not permit recovery "is enough to establish that a reading imposing monetary liability on the Government is not ‘unambiguous' and therefore should not be adopted"

  10. Blessing v. Freestone

    520 U.S. 329 (1997)   Cited 1,434 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Title IV-D of the Social Security Act "does not give individuals a federal right to force a state agency to substantially comply with" its terms because "the requirement that a State operate its child support program in `substantial compliance' with Title IV-D was not intended to benefit individual children and custodial parents, and therefore it does not constitute a federal right" enforceable under § 1983

  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 489,268 times   693 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

  12. Section 1915 - Proceedings in forma pauperis

    28 U.S.C. § 1915   Cited 291,102 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, after a plaintiff is granted in forma pauperis status, "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted"

  13. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 97,806 times   136 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

  14. Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1367   Cited 62,128 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"

  15. Section 1346 - United States as defendant

    28 U.S.C. § 1346   Cited 24,109 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Determining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"

  16. Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1446   Cited 21,883 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim

  17. Section 1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1985   Cited 19,897 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Concerning conspiracies to obstruct justice or intimidate a party, witness, or juror

  18. Section 1962 - Prohibited activities

    18 U.S.C. § 1962   Cited 15,936 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Specifying prohibited activities

  19. Section 1341 - Frauds and swindles

    18 U.S.C. § 1341   Cited 13,432 times   104 Legal Analyses
    Relating to mail fraud

  20. Section 2680 - Exceptions

    28 U.S.C. § 2680   Cited 7,698 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that claims for injurious falsehoods, disparagement of property, slander of goods, or trade libel are claims arising out of libel or slander under the FTCA