Rosenberg v. Gould

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 cannot amend their complaint through a response to a motion to dismiss
• concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying request for leave to amend where the request was merely included in a footnote and did not “describe the substance of [the] proposed amendment”
• confirming that request for leave to amend cannot be included in a footnote in a memo opposing a motion to dismiss
• noting that a restatement of 0.5 percent of revenue in one year and 0.17 percent of revenue in another to be a de minimis change that does not amount to a glaring “red flag”
• affirming dismissal of a backdating case resting solely “ ‘on speculation and conclusory allegations.’ ”
• “ ‘Where a request for leave to file an amended complaint simply is imbedded within an opposition memorandum, the issue has not been raised properly.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).