S.D. New York· 7/8/2010
Thai v. Cayre Group, Ltd.
Citations
- 726 F. Supp. 2d 323
- 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67951
- 2010 WL 2710615
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- denying leave to amend where there was “no additional substantive information [plaintiff] could offer to cure the deficient pleadings with respect to her ... claim’
- explaining the analytical confusion that persisted over Swierkiewicz in the wake of Twombly and Iqbal
- denying leave to amend where there was “no additional substantive information [plaintiff] could offer to cure the deficient pleadings with respect to her. . . claim’’
- denying leave to amend where there was “no additional substantive information [plaintiff] could offer to cure the deficient pleadings with respect to her . . . claim’’
- eon-clusory allegations, or charges based on “surmise, conjecture; and suspicion” are insufficient to defeat common interest privilege
- “A defamation claim is only sufficient if it adequately identifies the purported communication.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Shira A. Scheindlin
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Biro v. Condé NastS.D. New York· 2012-08-09· cited 110×
- Reich v. LopezS.D. New York· 2014-08-18· cited 55×
- Restis v. American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran, Inc.S.D. New York· 2014-09-30· cited 43×
- Lan Sang v. Ming HaiS.D. New York· 2013-06-27· cited 35×
- Grayson v. Ressler & ResslerS.D. New York· 2017-09-19· cited 27×
- Thorsen v. Sons of NorwayE.D. New York· 2014-02-06· cited 25×
- Burton v. Label, LLCS.D. Illinois· 2018-09-30· cited 24×
- Campanella v. County of MonroeW.D. New York· 2012-02-17· cited 18×
- Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLPS.D. New York· 2015-01-28· cited 15×
- Ibraheem v. Wackenhut Services, Inc.E.D. New York· 2014-05-09· cited 14×
- Trachtenberg v. Failedmessiah.comE.D. New York· 2014-08-29· cited 7×
- Ebrahimian v. Nationwide Mutual Fire InsuranceE.D. New York· 2013-06-10· cited 6×
Cites
65 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court· 2009-05-18· cited 149,772×
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court· 2007-05-21· cited 146,720×
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court· 1957-11-18· cited 30,380×
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court· 1962-12-03· cited 17,205×
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court· 1966-03-28· cited 13,852×
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court· 2002-02-26· cited 8,748×
- New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court· 1964-03-09· cited 8,531×
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court· 2006-06-22· cited 7,269×
- Fowler v. UPMC SHADYSIDEThird Circuit· 2009-08-18· cited 5,935×
- Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.Second Circuit· 2002-02-21· cited 4,118×
- Cuoco v. MoritsuguSecond Circuit· 2000-07-28· cited 2,979×
- McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp.Second Circuit· 2007-04-06· cited 1,966×
- Patane v. ClarkSecond Circuit· 2007-11-28· cited 1,005×
- Liberman v. GelsteinNew York Court of Appeals· 1992-11-24· cited 838×
- Howell v. New York Post Co.New York Court of Appeals· 1993-04-05· cited 788×
- Sebastian Mangiafico v. Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, John Armstrong, and Theresa Lantz, Docket No. 05-5465-CvSecond Circuit· 2006-12-19· cited 747×
- Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the BlindNew York Court of Appeals· 2004-10-26· cited 734×
- Tara C. Galabya v. New York City Board of EducationSecond Circuit· 2000-02-07· cited 663×
- William Hayden v. County of Nassau, United States of America and Nassau County Guardians Association, Defendants-Intervenors-AppelleesSecond Circuit· 1999-06-09· cited 630×
- Feingold v. New YorkSecond Circuit· 2004-04-30· cited 605×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.