Legal Opinion
Mann v. GTCR Golder Rauner, L.L.C.
District Court, D. Arizona
Decided August 28, 2006No. CIV 02-2099-PHX RCBPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
BROOMFIELD, Senior District Judge.
On June 11, 2004, Plaintiffs filed their Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (doc. 121), in which the Trustee and individual Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendant Kirkland & Ellis (“K & E”) for tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and professional malpractice. FAC (doc. 121) ¶¶ 320-23, 332-37, 384-88, 403-09, 414-22, 450-53, 467-73, 481-86. Many of Plaintiffs’ claims against K & E are based at least in part on a theory of…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Robin Orr v. Bank of America, Nt & SaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cecala v. NewmanDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2007
- Mann Ex Rel. Estate of LeapSource, Inc. v. GTCR Golder Rauner, LLCDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2007
- Klee v. LunnCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014