In re General Electric Co. Securities Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that Noerr-Pennington does not apply to an FDCPA action
• declining to abstain under Colorado River in case where plaintiff claimed defendants’ conduct in state debt-collection action violated the FDCPA because the actions were not parallel
• declining to abstain under Colorado River in case where plaintiff claimed defendants’ conduct in state debt- collection action violated the FDCPA, on ground that actions were not parallel
• a claim that defendants used allegedly deceptive means to induce the plaintiff to agree to a settlement is independent of the state court judgment enforcing the settlement
• “Therefore, the only remaining question is whether the filing of such a time-barred complaint is a violation of the FDCPA. This Court joins others in concluding that it is.”
• “New York, unlike the federal system, does not have a compulsory counterclaim rule, and, therefore, res judicata does not bar claims that could have been raised by the defendant as counterclaims in a previous action but were not actually raised.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).