Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Poirier
District Court, D. Oregon
1Opinion of the Court
REDDEN, District Judge:
This is a complex securities action naming thirty-three defendants. Thirteen of those defendants have filed motions to dismiss various portions of the complaint. The motions raise issues of standing, personal and subject matter jurisdiction, and assertions that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. After a thorough review of all the material submitted on these motions, I find that none have merit, and deny each. 1 do note that some of the motions presented may have merit at a later time, but are now premature.
STANDARD
A complaint…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Herman & MacLean v. HuddlestonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Perry O. Hooper, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Consolidated American Industries, Inc. v. Mountain States Securities CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1960
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,947 Dean Walling v. Beverly Enterprises, a California CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1973
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Natlional Asbestos Workers Medical Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1999
- In Re Ikon Office Solutions, Inc. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1999
- Bradford v. MoenchDistrict Court, D. Utah · 1987
- National Asbestos Workers Medical Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1999