Legal Opinion
Arndt v. Prudential Bache Securities, Inc.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided November 28, 1984No. Civ. 84-1235-JLI(CM)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
IRVING, District Judge.
Defendants Prudential Bache; Farrish; Katsen; Merrill Lynch; Hinke; Drexel Burnham Lambert; and Marquit’s Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9 motions came on for hearing on November 19, 1984. Having considered the pleadings, all papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motions, and the oral argument of counsel, the court issues the following memorandum.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired with various companies with which J. David Dominelli had a relationship (“J. David Entities”), and each other, to carry out a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Michael E. Moss v. Morgan Stanley Inc., E. Jacques Courtois, Jr., Adrian Antoniu, and James M. Newman, Morgan Stanley Inc. And James M. NewmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- SEDIMA, S.P.R.L., Appellant, v. IMREX COMPANY, INC., Gidon Armon and Jacob Armon, AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- Hokama v. EF Hutton & Co., Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 1983
- Harper v. New Japan Securities International, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 1982
- Bruns v. LedbetterDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1984
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Breeden v. Richmond Community CollegeDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1997
- Madison River Management Co. v. Business Management Software Corp.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2005
- Gray v. First Winthrop Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1990