Ben Franklin Insurance v. Schroeder

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding 16 that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the second amended complaint with 17 18 5 See, e.g., Buffets, Inc. v. Klinke, 73 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir. 1996
• concluding 11 that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the second amended complaint with 12 prejudice and without leave to amend where the court had already allowed the plaintiff to 13 amend their complaint
• “Projections about the likelihood of FDA approval are forward- 19 looking statements. They are assumptions related to the company’s plan for its product, and as 20 such fall under the PSLRA’s safe harbor rule.”
• “Projections about the likelihood of FDA approval are forward- 19 looking statements. They are assumptions related to the company’s plan for its product, and as 20 such fall under the PSLRA’s safe harbor rule.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).