Brandon Cleveland and Isiah Jackson v. Caplaw Enterprises, Docket No. 05-4643-Cv

How courts have described this case

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

• finding matters outside the pleadings presented to the court were \excluded\ within the meaning of Rule 12(d) by the district court's explicit refusal to consider the outside materials
• “[ERISA] was not designed to address every conceivable aspect of an employee’s monetary rights, and it is not primarily concerned with hourly wages and overtime pay, the domain of the FLSA and its state counterparts.”
• “The standard for addressing a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as that for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”
• “[T]he control asserted need not ‘include control at every moment; its exercise may be very attenuated and, as where the principal is physically absent, may be ineffective.’” (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 14 cmt. a)
• “Because Cleveland and Jackson have pled facts that could reasonably support a finding of control of LC Properties by Caplaw, it was error to dismiss the complaint at the pleadings stage for failure to allege agency.”
• “The standard for addressing a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as that for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” (citing Karedes v. Ackerley Grp., Inc., 423 F.3d 107, 113 (2d Cir. 2005))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).