Richard M. Yuhasz v. Brush Wellman, Inc.

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 complaint at issue did not comply with Rule 9(b) inasmuch as it failed to “identify specific parties, contracts, or fraudulent acts”
• holding that leave to amend may be denied where the amendment would be futile
• stating that 13 “employees charged with investigating potential fraud are not automatically 14 precluded from bringing a Section 3730(h
• stating that the purpose of a motion 52 to dismiss “is to enable the defendants to challenge the legal sufficiency of complaints without subjecting themselves to discovery”
• explaining that “leave to amend may be denied where the amendment would be futile”
• finding that, notwithstanding the party’s argument that he could not obtain certain information needed to plead a claim with particularity absent discovery, “there is no general right to discovery upon filing of the complaint”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).