Chicago Building Design, P.C. v. Mongolian House, 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 courts should only dismiss based on a statute of limitations defense “where the allegations of the complaint itself set forth everything necessary”
• recognizing that the defendant carries the burden of showing that “the allegations of the complaint itself set forth everything necessary to satisfy the [statute of limitations]”
• explaining that the Seventh Circuit recognizes the discovery rule in copyright cases and declining to address whether Petrella abrogates the rule
• explaining that dismissal is appropriate “only where the allegations of the complaint itself set forth everything necessary to satisfy the affirmative defense”
• noting that dismissal based on an affirmative defense is only appropriate when “the allegations of the complaint itself set forth everything necessary to satisfy the affirmative defense” (quotation marks omitted)
• noting that dismissal at the pleading stage for an affirmative defense remains “irregular,” suitable “only where the allegations of the complaint itself set forth everything necessary to satisfy the affirmative defense”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).