Samuel Field YM & YWHA, Inc. v. Irvings Roth & Rubin, PLLC

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the district court did not err in dismissing unnamed parties, because “[i]t is generally impermissible to name fictitious parties as defendants in federal court”
• concluding the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a § 1983 claim where they (1) heavily relied on speculation, legal conclusions, and “non-specific conclusory allegations” against the defendants as a group, (2
• explaining that a “claim has sufficient facial plausibility to survive [a motion to dismiss] where the plaintiff has pled enough facts to allow the Court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct”
• explaining that a “claim has sufficient facial plausibility to survive [a motion to dismiss] where the plaintiff has pled enough facts to allow the Court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct”
• explaining that a “claim has sufficient facial plausibility to survive [a motion to dismiss] where the plaintiff has pled enough facts to allow the Court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct.”
• explaining that a “claim has sufficient facial plausibility to survive [a motion to dismiss] where the plaintiff has pled enough facts to allow the Court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).