§Why CasetextPricing

Wright v. The Berkley Group, Inc.

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss 32 Amended Complaint

52 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 263,477 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 276,716 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. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.

    534 U.S. 506 (2002)   Cited 17,232 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"

  4. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

    564 U.S. 338 (2011)   Cited 6,874 times   508 Legal Analyses
    Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”

  5. Christopher v. Harbury

    536 U.S. 403 (2002)   Cited 5,221 times
    Holding Verdugo-Urquidez and Eisentrager foreclosed due process claim for actions taken against alien abroad

  6. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.

    545 U.S. 546 (2005)   Cited 4,330 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the supplemental jurisdiction statute permits the exercise of diversity jurisdiction over additional plaintiffs who fail to satisfy the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement, as long as the other elements of diversity jurisdiction are present and at least one named plaintiff does satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement

  7. Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co.

    553 U.S. 639 (2008)   Cited 1,129 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that bidders at a county tax-lien auction plausibly alleged RICO proximate causation when they lost to a competing bidder who lied to the county about complying with the auction's rules

  8. Jackson v. Bellsouth Telecomms.

    372 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,841 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the same analysis applies to federal and Florida RICO claims

  9. Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

    564 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2009)   Cited 831 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to prove the existence of a contract, a plaintiff must plead, among other things, "sufficient specification of the essential terms."

  10. Hill v. White

    321 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2003)   Cited 872 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]e review de novo the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss under 12(b) for failure to state a claim"

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 162,084 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Section 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment

    47 U.S.C. § 227   Cited 5,769 times   742 Legal Analyses
    Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals