Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “anyone who can ‘trace’ his shares to the challenged registration statement (i.e., not merely the initial purchasers
• holding that purchasers who buy their shares on the secondary market lack standing to bring § 12(a)(2) claims.
• holding that after final judgment is entered, a plaintiff seeking to amend a complaint may do so via a Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) motion, not a Rule 15 motion
• holding that district court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to amend complaint where “plaintiffs did not attach a proposed amended complaint,” leaving district court to “speculate” about how additional facts might amount to a legal claim
• emphasizing that Rule 59(e) “cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued”
• stating that Rule 59(e) “cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued” (quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).