Lenz v. Associated Inns & Restaurants Co. of America

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the question of reasonable diligence is usually one of fact
• stating that “in a derivative action brought by a limited partner, the limited partnership is an indispensable party.”
• finding that plaintiffs were on inquiry notice of fraud upon receipt of an IRS letter valuing assets of a limited partnership at an amount significantly less than defendant had represented at sale
• finding that under Carden, “in a derivative action brought by a limited partner, the limited partnership is an indispensable party,” but in a direct or class action, “the limited partnership itself may be dropped ... or disregarded for diversity purposes.”
• stating that, “it should be noted that in determining whether a claim is derivative or direct, the court must look to the nature of the wrongs alleged in the body of plaintiffs complaint, and is not limited by plaintiffs characterization or stated intention”
• granting summary judgment where “undisputed facts” showed that plaintiff was aware of continuing material inconsistencies between defendant’s oral representations and written statements and agreements, the plummeting value of the investment, and defendant’s prior fraud conviction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).