United States Ex Rel. Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a court should “not accept ‘legal conclusions couched as facts or unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments’”
• explaining that in contesting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff “cannot cure pleading deficiencies in the . . . complaint with later-filed supporting documentation”
• explaining that, in analyzing Rule 12(b)(6) motions, courts “will not accept legal conclusions couched as facts or unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments” (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted)
• affirming denial of motion for leave to amend in light, inter alia, of a two-year gap between filing of complaint and dismissal
• denying fourth motion for leave to amend “[i]n n view of the multiple opportunities [the plaintiff] has been afforded to correct his pleading deficiencies”
• discussing how FCA claim elements require alleging that “a specific false claim was presented to the government for payment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).