Carlos Zelaya v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the discretionary-function exception applies to claims based on the SEC’s failure to discover and take action against Ponzi schemer
• holding that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the misrepresentation exception because their “injuries here arose precisely from the SEC’s failure to notify SPIC”
• holding that “the misrepresentation exception applies to the breach of the duty to use due care in obtaining and communicating information upon which [the plaintiff] may reasonably be expected to rely in the conduct of his economic affairs”
• observing that when the United States has not waived sovereign immunity under the FTCA, federal courts are deprived of subject matter jurisdiction
• explaining that “injuries that are dependent” on a misrepresentation are deemed to “arise out of’ the misrepresentation
• explaining that the “phrase ‘arising out of’ is interpreted broadly to include all injuries that are dependent upon one of the listed torts having been committed”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).