DeFazio v. Wallis

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the plaintiff’s claims of fraudulent mailings failed under Rule 9(b) because they did “not explain what the [fraudulent] forms are; what information they contained; when the documents were mailed; or who sent them”
• finding that the plaintiff’s claims of fraudulent mailings failed under Rule 9(b) because they did “not explain what the [fraudulent] forms are; what information they contained; when the documents were mailed; or who sent them”
• finding that the plaintiff’s claims of fraudulent mailings failed under Rule 9(b) because they did “not explain what the [fraudulent] forms are; what information they contained; when the documents were mailed; or who sent them”
• finding that the distinctiveness requirement was not met where the plaintiffs described the RICO enterprise as the corporate defendant and named individuals alleged to be owners, officers, and shareholders of the corporate defendant and/or its affiliates
• denying a motion to reconsider an order disqualifying counsel under Rule 60 because such an order was not “final”’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).