Appert v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that SLUSA did not bar bringing a breach of contract claim as a class action because “whether Morgan Stanley improperly inflated the . . . fee to include a profit is not objectively material to . . . any class members’ investment decisions”
• holding that SLUSA did not bar bringing a breach of contract claim as a class action because “whether Morgan Stanley improperly inflated the . . . fee to include a profit is not objectively material to . . . any class members’ investment decisions”
• explaining that party seeking remand bears burden of proving applicability of CAFA exception
• \The language in SLUSA is similar to that in § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and there is no basis to construe 'materiality' differently under these provisions.\
• “The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of demonstrating its existence.”
• “The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of demonstrating its existence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).