Edgars v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• granting motion to dismiss because \[p]laintiffs have not shown that an exception to the statutes of limitations or tolling doctrine should apply\
• declining to apply rule where “alleged recurring injuries during the 19 limitations period arose out of a single transaction that occurred before the limitations period”
• finding that where the 8 court had previously granted a motion to dismiss with leave to amend, and the amended complaint 9 failed to cure the deficiencies, another opportunity to amend would cause undue delay, undue 10 prejudice to defendant, and would be futile
• “Plaintiffs nevertheless must allege specific factual allegations of fraudulent concealment to survive a motion to dismiss.”
• plaintiff seeking to allege fraudulent-concealment must satisfy Rule 9(b) heightened pleading requirements
• where the defendant 23 entered into an allegedly unlawful contract prior to the limitations period, the defendant still must 24 take an unlawful ‘new and independent act that is not merely a reaffirmation of a previous act’ 25 during the limitations period.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).