Bishop v. Lucent Technologies, 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 a statute-of- limitations issue may be reached on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)
• holding that the claim was clearly barred by the three-year statute of limitations because the complaint alleged facts indicating that the plaintiffs had actual knowledge of their claim more than three years before the complaint was filed
• holding that an ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claim was properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) when the complaint alleged facts indicating that plaintiffs had actual knowledge of their claim more than three years before filing the complaint
• stating that, at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true
• noting that the addition of a cursory request for leave to amend on appeal does not cure the error
• “Even under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint containing a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion of a legally cognizable right of action is insufficient.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).