Computer Products International, Inc. 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.

• finding that for relation back to apply there must be sufficient commonality between the facts alleged in the initial and amended complaints to preclude a claim of unfair surprise
• allowing relation back of RICO claim when claim would require evidence of same wrongful acts alleged in original complaint for fraud
• finding constructive knowledge where the loss of an entire investment within a four-month period \should have caused eyebrows to raise\ and imposed a \duty of inquiry that would ... have disclosed the nature and extent of\ the fraud
• finding constructive 9 knowledge where the loss of an entire investment within a four‐month period 10 “should have caused eyebrows to raise” and imposed a “duty of inquiry that 11 would . . . have disclosed the nature and extent of” the fraud
• “To a large extent, proof of Kinzinger’s RICO cause of action would require evidence of the same or similar wrongful acts and the testimony of the same or similar witnesses as would proof of Mocatta’s alleged Commodity Exchange Act violations.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).