Legal Opinion
Curbow Family LLC v. Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors
New York Supreme Court
Decided July 18, 2012PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Bernard J. Fried, J.
In these two shareholder derivative actions, motions seeking dismissal of the complaint based on documentary evidence and *891for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), have been held in abeyance pending the resolution of plaintiffs’ request for further discovery. Supplemental briefs on the discovery issue were filed, argument was held on February 17, 2012, and letters dated April 2, 2012 (nominal defendants and defendants — NYSCEF document No. 74 [Curbow/Morgan Stanley action], document No. 84 [Rotz/Van Kampen action]) and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Edgar v. Mite Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Halebian v. BervCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2011
- Tanges v. Heidelberg North America, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1999
- Hart v. General Motors Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Fagin v. GilmartinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Halebian v. BervDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012
- Mark DeLong v. Brian Paul General Partner, LLCCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2021