Lone Star Ladies Investment Club v. Schlotzsky's Inc.

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 district court erred in denying plaintiffs leave to file their amended securities complaint
• holding that the district court erred in denying plaintiffs leave to file their amended securities complaint
• holding that district court’s dismissal with prejudice of complaint alleging both § 10(b) and § 11 claims was abuse of discretion because plaintiffs had colorable § 11 claim and could plead it in amended complaint, absent any allegation of fraud
• applying Rule 9(b) to “averments of fraud, whether they are part of a claim for fraud or not”
• explaining that Rule 8’s lower pleading standards apply to Section 12 claims on a motion to dismiss and that this “lower threshold of liability under section 11 and 12 of the 1933 Act as compared to the 1934 Act here [on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion] matters a great deal”
• approving district court’s reliance on Melder v. Morris, 27 F.3d 1097, 1100 n.6 (5th Cir. 1994) for proposition that Rule 9(b) is applicable to 1933 Securities Act claims that are grounded in fraud

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).