Glaser Ex Rel. Glaser v. Enzo Biochem, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that plaintiffs inadequately pled the element of loss causation as part of their common law fraud claim because they failed to \link the drop in stock price to any revelation of the true facts behind any alleged misrepresentation by defendants\
• noting that the plaintiffs “had already set forth four iterations of their complaint” and concluding “that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that [their] many opportunities to present their claim warranted denial of the motion to amend”
• noting that the plaintiffs “had already set forth four iterations of their complaint” and concluding “that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that [their] many opportunities to present their claim warranted denial of the motion to amend”
• “Dura requires plaintiffs to plead loss causation by alleging that the stock price fell after the truth of a misrepresentation about the stocks was revealed”
• first quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); and then quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)
• “We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the plaintiffs’ many opportunities to present their claim warranted denial of the motion to amend.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).