Gentilello v. Rege

How courts have described this case

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

• holding court did not abuse its discretion when party “contended that his pleadings sufficed to state a . . . claim [and] adamantly asserted that he was not required to plead additional facts”
• applying Ashcroft 7 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), to a Rule 12(c) motion
• applying “the same standard as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)”
• “Under that [Rule 12(b)(6)] standard, we must evaluate the sufficiency of the proposed complaint and decide which, if any, of [the plaintiff’s] claims survive the pleadings.”
• “‘We do not accept as true conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions.’”
• “[T]he due process clause does not protect [plaintiff’s] specific job duties or responsibilities absent a statute, rule, or express agreement reflecting an understanding that he had a unique property interest in those duties or responsibilities.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).