Griffith v. Consumer Portfolio Serv., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that where the expected loss was not enough to require accrual and the plaintiffs only alleged that a suit was “reasonably possible” the plaintiffs had failed to allege the required likelihood of loss under Item 303
• finding no omission where allegedly concealed information had been reported in several media outlets
• “the District Court simply took judicial notice of Appellees’ exhibits for the purpose of establishing that the information in the various documents was publicly available.”
• Under Rule 9, a complaint must “(1) specify the statements that the plaintiff contends were fraudulent, (2
• defendant’s “own disclosures ... support an inference against scienter that is far stronger than the competing inference that the plaintiffs suggest”
• “[W]here there is disclosure that is broad enough to cover a specific risk, the disclosure is not misleading simply because it fails to discuss the specific risk.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).