Skip to main content
E.D. Michigan· 3/28/2003

Bowens v. Aftermath Entertainment

Citations

  • 254 F. Supp. 2d 629
  • 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4844
  • 2003 WL 1725121

How courts have described this case

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

  • stating that the Federal Wiretap Act “includes a private right of action” (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2520)
  • explaining that an attachment, unlike a contract, does not define the rights and obligations of the parties, is not a “written instrument” for purposes of Rule 10(c), and more like the sort of evidentiary material that should not be attached to pleadings
  • noting that a defendant may introduce a pertinent document that a plaintiff has failed to attach to a motion to dismiss because “[o]therwise, a plaintiff with a legally deficient claim could survive a motion to dismiss simply by failing to attach a dispositive document.”
  • “In order to resolve these questions, the Court would be required to make factual determinations that are inappropriate at this stage of the proceedings”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gadola

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Bowens v. Aftermath Entertainment

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.