Skip to main content
Second Circuit· 4/28/2016

Goel v. Bunge, Ltd.

Citations

  • 820 F.3d 554
  • 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7678
  • 2016 WL 1696597

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that CPLR § 205(a) does not apply to toll the RICO statute of limitations citing the need for federal uniformity
  • holding that document is not integral to complaint 17 if “merely mention[ed]”
  • noting that we may look at ʺmatters of which judicial notice may be takenʺ when considering motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (internal quotation marks omitted)
  • explaining that references to other litigations “does not open the door to consideration, on a motion to dismiss, of any and all documents filed in connection with [those] litigation[s]”
  • noting that, .in determining the adequacy of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6
  • discussing materials that may properly be considered in resolving a motion brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cabranes, Chin, Kearse

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

57 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Goel v. Bunge, Ltd.

1 other CourtListener record shares 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.