Arruda v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming that we do not credit claims made in a complaint if they are “bald assertions” or “unsupportable conclusions.”
• interpreting section 1692a(5) and finding bankruptcy discharge did not extinguish Sears’ lien on consumer goods purchased by plaintiffs but obligation to Sears after bankruptcy discharge was only in rem right of repossession as opposed to obligation to pay money
• “[W]e will affirm a Rule 12(b)(6). dismissal only if ‘the factual averments do not justify recovery on some theory adumbrated, in the complaint.’ ”
• “[W]e will affirm a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal only if ‘the factual averments do not justify recovery on some theory adumbrated in the complaint.’ ”
• “It is hornbook law that a valid lien survives a discharge in bankruptcy unless it is avoidable and the debtor takes the proper steps to avoid it.”
• Motions to dismiss require courts to \assume the truth of all well-pleaded facts and indulge all reasonable inferences therefrom that fit the plaintiff's stated theory of liability.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).