Stanley Cohen, Gerald A. Garfinkle, Eastern Artists and Drafting Materials, Inc. v. Elliott Koenig, and Robert Koenig

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 complied with Rule 9(b) when they specified who made the false statement, and the precise dates and place of meeting where the statement was made
• stating that a relatively concrete representation as to a defendant’s future performance, if made at a time when the speaker knows that the represented performance cannot be achieved, may ground a claim of fraud
• citing, inter alia, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)
• holding district court did not abuse its discretion after 26 3 CCA does not dispute that settlement discussions occurred during this timeline. (See Doc. 502 at 13-14.) CCA, however, objects to the summary exhibit of settlement 27 communications (Doc. 418-1
• finding amended complaint “sufficient to satisfy Rule 9(b)’s requirements as to scienter”
• upholding fraud claim where individuals but not their corporate entity were named as defendants and stating “[s]ince the amended complaint alleged that the [individual defendants] themselves made misrepresentations, their positions as … officers and directors afforded no basis for dismissal”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).