Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that in ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions, courts may examine documents incorporated into the complaint by reference
• holding that in light of Dura and Twombly, in order to establish loss causation, a plaintiff must plead a “facially ‘plausible’ causal relationship between the fraudulent statements or omissions and plaintiff's economic loss”
• noting that in ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions, courts may examine documents incorporated into the complaint by reference
• explaining that our “related to” test is in harmony with 8 Dura’s “relevant to” standard
• holding emails attached as exhibits to the complaint provided support for a strong inference of defendants' wrongful state of mind.
• finding that “[o]nee the defendants engaged in public discussions concerning the benefits of ... the no-deposit programs, they had a duty to disclose a ‘mix of information’ that is not misleading.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).