Lopez v. Rivera

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming denial of leave to amend because “Plaintiff failed to identify those facts that would save his complaint, should he be granted leave to amend, with sufficient specificity”
• affirming denial of leave to amend because “Plaintiff failed to identify those facts that would save his complaint, should he be granted leave to amend, with sufficient specificity”
• affirming trial court’s dismissal without leave to amend where plaintiff “failed to identify those facts that would save his complaint, should he be granted leave to amend, with sufficient specificity”
• “[T]he three- year statute of limitations period began to run on the accounting malpractice claim against KPMG no later than May 13, 1998, the date when KPMG issued its formal opinion letter to Plaintiff.”
• “Plaintiff’s contention that the period of repose begins to run at the time of the last alleged misrepresentation (even when made after the final purchase or sale of the securities) ignores the applicable limitations period, and thus, is devoid of merit.”
• “Plaintiff’s 13 contention that the period of repose begins to run at the time of the last alleged misrepresentation 14 (even when made after the final purchase or sale of the securities) ignores the applicable limitations 15 period, and thus, is devoid of merit.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).