DDR Construction Services, Inc. v. Siemens Industry, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• dismissing a civil conspiracy claim because complaint did not “state any facts indicating the what, when, where, and how of the conspiracy”
• dismissing civil conspiracy claim where “[t]he complaint does not state any facts indicating the what, when, where, and how of the conspiracy[.]”
• dismissing a conversion claim where, despite a potential contractual right to profits, plaintiff never had “control or possession” of the funds
• declining to abstain because all Siemens-affiliated entities were absent from state case
• “Rule 3211(a)(1) allows dismissal on the ground that ‘a defense is founded upon documentary evidence.’ ” (quoting NY. C.P.L.R. 3211(a)(1))
• “[A] Rule 3211(a)(7) is only on a case[’s] mer- its if the rendering court explicitly says so.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).