D.E. & J Ltd. Partnership v. Conaway

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that group pleading is “clearly inconsistent with [FRCP] 9(b)’s express requirements of specificity” and that the PSLRA “codifies a ban against group pleading”
• observing that “[n]ot only does' such ‘group pleading run afoul of Central Bank [v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 114 S.Ct. 1439, 128 L.Ed.2d 119 (1994) ], but also it fails to meet .. .Fed. R. Civ. P.9(b)’s specificity requirements....” (citing cases
• acknowledging the impermissibility of group pleading under the particularity requirement of Rule 9(b)
• acknowledging the impermissibility of group pleading under the particularity requirement of Rule 9(b)
• “[L]oss causation cannot be found if an intervening cause was responsible for the plaintiffs economic loss.”
• “Conclusory allegations of access to unspecified ‘internal records’ are insufficient to support a claim of ‘knowledge’ or ‘reckless disregard . . . .’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).