Mario Ronzani v. Sanofi S.A., Sanofi Incorporated, and Arnhold and S. Bleichroeder, Incorporated

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 plaintiff was entitled to replead where it was not clear that he “could not correct deficiencies in his complaint”
• holding that the district court erred in denying leave to replead even though the plaintiff had already amended his complaint once as a matter of course
• finding that plaintiff failed to allege a contractual relationship where plaintiff’s right to acquire securities was triggered by a third-party’s acceptance of an offer
• noting that “[w]hen a motion to dismiss is granted, the usual practice is to grant leave to amend the complaint”
• vacating dismissal of complaint with prejudice where district court did not provide an explanation for its denial of leave to amend and where appellate record did not permit an independent determination of futility
• finding .the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint without granting leave to amend where the plaintiff “had not previously been given leave to amend” — although the original complaint was amended once pursuant to Rule 15(a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).