Segal v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting the plaintiff had a choice as to what allegations to include in his complaint and under what methods to proceed under as he was the master of the complaint
• “Does the amended complaint allege an ‘untrue statement’ or a ‘material omission’ of fact.... If either one is true, SLUSA bars the complaint.” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)
• “Segal’s allegations do not merely ‘coincide’ with securities transactions; they depend on them. Under these circumstances, the district court properly concluded that SLUSA requires the dismissal of this complaint.” (citations omitted)
• courts look to “the substance of a complaint’s allegations,” lest a 12(b)(6) motion reduce to a “formalistic search through the pages of the complaint” for precise terminology
• “Segal’s allegations do not merely ‘coincide’ with securities transactions; they depend on them. Under these circumstances, the district court properly concluded that SLUSA requires the dismissal of this complaint.” (citations omitted)
• “Segal’s allegations do not merely ‘coincide’ with securities transactions; they depend on them. Under these circumstances, the district court properly concluded that SLUSA requires the dismissal of this complaint.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).