Skip to main content
S.D. California· 1/26/2001

DeMarco v. DepoTech Corp.

Citations

  • 149 F. Supp. 2d 1212
  • 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5336
  • 2001 WL 850049

How courts have described this case

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

  • finding that expert affidavit did not qualify as a written instrument and was 13 not incorporated into complaint pursuant to Rule 10(c)
  • considering a request to strike 3 pursuant to Rule 10(c) in relation to a motion to dismiss
  • striking expert opinion attached to complaint in securities fraud case under Rule 10
  • allowing plaintiffs to rely on an expert's opinion in order to state securities claims requires a court to \confront a myriad of complex evidentiary issues not generally capable of resolution at the pleading stage\
  • “Although Plaintiffs may have established a legitimate difference in opinion as to the1 proper statistical analysis,- they have hardly stated a securities fraud claim.”
  • “Conclusory allegations and speculation carry no additional weight merely because a plaintiff placed them within the affidavit of a retained expert.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Whelan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

39 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named DeMarco v. DepoTech Corp.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.