Goldenberg v. Indel, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that presumption of truth does not apply to factual allegations contradicted by documents attached to the complaint
• holding that, under § 1104(a)(1)(D), plaintiffs adequately alleged a violation of an IPS where the IPS mandated “Specific Asset Allocation” and contained a “restricted investment” provision
• noting that “Defendants correctly argue that [Rule] 17(b) only gives unincorporated associations the capacity to make and be subject to federal claims”
• dismissing state-law claims where plaintiff clearly expressed intention to do so in brief’s heading, as Plaintiff does here
• “A bare comparison of fees between different kinds of service providers is an insufficient factual basis for a claim of breach of fiduciary duty.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).