Magaly Pinares v. United Technologies Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “[i]n the absence of a developed factual record, or undisputed matters which can be judicially noticed, a district court is not equipped to make plausibility determinations on complex scientific issues” at the motion to dismiss stage
• applying Florida law and rejecting the premise that contaminants exceeding regulatory requirements is essential to stating an injury at the motion-to-dismiss stage
• cautioning against Lone Pine orders “as platforms for pseudo-summary judgment motions” inconsistent with both the pleading requirements of Rule 8 and the summary judgment requirements of FRCP 56
• cautioning against Lone Pine orders “as platforms for pseudo-summary judgment motions” inconsistent with both the pleading requirements of Rule 8 and the summary judgment requirements of FRCP 56
• “District courts have broad discretion in deciding how best to manage the cases before them.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “Economic harm . . . [is] a well-established injur[y]-in-fact under federal standing jurisprudence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).