Ryder Energy Dist. v. Merrill Lynch Commod

41 Citing briefs

  1. Behrens et al v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N. A. et al

    REPLY to Response to Motion re: 228 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. . Document

    Filed February 4, 2019

    Moreover, even if Plaintiffs had adequately alleged knowledge here, dismissal would still be required because Plaintiffs have not pleaded a cognizable “ulterior motive” for NFA’s alleged failures to regulate. Ryder, 748 F.2d at 780; see MTD 15-17. In response, Plaintiffs argue that NFA had an ulterior motive because it receives transaction-based “Assessment Fees,” which can be earned whether a transaction is “fraudulent or not” (Opp.

  2. Behrens et al v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N. A. et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 228 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. . Document

    Filed October 22, 2018

    Failure adequately to allege an ulterior motive warrants dismissal on the pleadings. Ryder, 748 F.2d at 780 (affirming dismissal of complaint which did not allege “ulterior motive”). For instance in Brawer, the plaintiffs pleaded that a self-regulatory organization did not take a regulatory action because leaving the status quo intact would “generate increased trading volumes and revenues.”

  3. United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Benjamin Wey, et al.

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 124 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. . Document

    Filed September 30, 2016

    Ryder Energy Distrib. Corp. 748 F.2d at 779. More problematic for Newman are all the putative facts he asserts, which are simply not in the SAC or otherwise before the Court at this stage.

  4. Scott v. Wei et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 52 FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct First Amended Complaint. . Document

    Filed July 9, 2018

    If there are at least colorable grounds for relief, justice requires the granting of the motion to Case 1:15-cv-09691-RWS Document 53 Filed 07/09/18 Page 12 of 16 9 amend. Ryder Energy Distrib. Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Commodities Inc., 748 F.2d 774, 783 (2d Cir. 1984) (citation omitted). Defendants cannot possibly demonstrate futility here.

  5. Behrens et al v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N. A. et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 116 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. . Document

    Filed December 14, 2017

    To adequately plead bad faith, Plaintiffs must plead facts suggesting two things: “first, that the exchange acted or failed to act with knowledge; and second, that the exchange’s action or inaction was the result of an ulterior motive.” Ryder Energy Dist. Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Commodities Inc., 748 F.2d 774, 780 (2d Cir. 1984). Plaintiffs have not adequately pleaded either prerequisite.

  6. Encalada et al v. Magliulo

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 6 MOTION to Dismiss . . Document

    Filed June 1, 2015

    ARGUMENT I. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS “The function of a motion to dismiss is “to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint…’” Ryder Energy Dist. Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Commodities Inc., 748 F.2d 774, 779 (2d Cir. 1984) (quoting Geisler v. Petrocelli, 616 F.2d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 1980)). Access 4 All, Inc., at al. v. Trump International Hotel and Tower Condominium, et al.; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13560 A motion to dismiss should be granted if it appears "clear" that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim which would entitle Plaintiff to relief consistent with the allegations in the Complaint.

  7. Jacoby & Meyers, LLP et al v. Schneiderman et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 127 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction . . Document

    Filed May 27, 2015

    The function of a motion to dismiss is “merely to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint, not to assay the weight of the evidence which might be offered in support thereof.” Ryder Energy Distribution v. Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc., 748 F.2d 774, 779 (2d Cir. 1984).                                                              1

  8. American International Group, Inc. v. New York State Department of Financial Services et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 32 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction . . Document

    Filed July 7, 2014

    The function of a motion to dismiss is “merely to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint, not to assay the weight of the evidence which might be offered in support thereof.” Ryder Energy Distrib. Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc., 748 F.2d 774, 779 (2d Cir. 1984). The factual allegations of the complaint need only be “enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”

  9. Simmons v. Ambit Energy Holdings, LLC et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 55 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, AND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM.. Document

    Filed February 14, 2014

    THE COMPLAINT STATES VALID CLAIMS FOR RELIEF UNDER NEW YORK’S CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS A. Legal Standard “The function of a motion to dismiss is merely to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint, not to assay the weight of the evidence which might be offered in support thereof.” Quinn v. Walgreen Co., – F. Supp. 2d –, No. 12 Civ. 8187, 2013 WL 4007568, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2013) (quoting Ryder Energy Distrib. Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc., 748 F.2d 774, 779 (2d Cir. 1984). In considering a motion o dismiss, all allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs.

  10. Jacoby & Meyers, LLP et al v. Schneiderman et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 115 THIRD MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.. Document

    Filed September 6, 2013

    The function of a motion to dismiss is "merely to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint, not to assay the weight of the evidence which might be offered in support thereof." Ryder Energy Distribution v. Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc., 748 F.2d 774, 779 (2d Cir. 1984). When deciding a motion to dismiss, courts must accept as true the well pleaded allegations of the complaint.