Bank of America Corp. v. Lemgruber

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Bank of America’s “choice of this forum” was entitled to “significant deference”
• noting that “any breach of fiduciary duty claims arising out of injuries to the corporation in most cases may only be brought by the corporation itself or derivatively on its behalf’
• “[A] fraudulent inducement claim also requires a showing of proximate causation[.]” (citations and quotation marks omitted)
• “However, ‘when the language of a contract is ambiguous, its construction presents a question of fact,’ which of course precludes summary dismissal.”
• “[W]hen resolving issues surrounding its subject matter jurisdiction, a district court is not confined to the Complaint and may refer to evidence outside the pleadings, such as affidavits.”
• “[W]hen resolving issues surrounding its subject matter jurisdiction, a district court is not confined to the Complaint and may refer to evidence outside the pleadings, such as affidavits.” (citing Makarova, 201 F.3d at 113)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).