Lindner Dividend Fund, Inc. v. Ernst & Young

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the American Pipe tolling doctrine could not be invoked against a defendant whose auditor was originally named in the class action, but was dropped from the amended complaint
• collecting cases and finding Rule 9(b) applicable to § 18 claims
• declining to apply American Pipe tolling to plaintiffs’ § 18 claim because “[t]he facts required to be pleaded and proved under § 10(b) are significantly different from the facts that give rise to § 18 claims”
• collecting cases and finding Rule 9(b) applicable to § 18 claims
• “While a subsequent individual suit need not necessarily be identical in every respect to an earlier class action for the limitations period to be tolled, . . . the class action suit must give defendant ample notice of plaintiff's individual claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).