Neilson v. Union Bank of California, N.A.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiffs could pre- vail if they could prove at trial that certain transfers made pur- suant to a Ponzi scheme were made within the limitations period of California’s UFTA
• holding that a claim for aiding and abetting may be stated 19 either by alleging (1) the defendant’s own commission of a tort and substantial assistance 20 of the other’s commission of the tort or (2
• finding that 16 although the plaintiff pleaded facts sufficient for the first element, the plaintiff failed to plead facts 17 as to the second element, and so had not adequately alleged the theory
• “courts have found pleadings sufficient if they allege generally that defendants had actual knowledge of a specific primary violation”
• “Motions to strike are generally regarded with disfavor because of the limited importance of pleading in federal practice, and because they are often used as a delaying tactic”
• “court orders and filings are the type of documents that are properly noticed under [Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).