Savodnik v. Korvettes, Inc.
District Court, E.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PLATT, District Judge.
Defendants have moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, in part or whole, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 8, 9, 10, 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), 12(e) and 12(f). Defendants urge that plaintiff has failed to satisfy minimal pleading requirements, failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that the complaint must fail for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and for failure to comply with Rules 8, 9, and 10 of the FRCP. Defendants further seek a more definitely stated complaint, and finally, request…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1978
- Fortune v. National Cash Register Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas CompanyIndiana Supreme Court · 1973
- Harless v. First National Bank in FairmontWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1978
- Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 396California Court of Appeal · 1959
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendonSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Gordon v. Matthew Bender & Co., Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1983
- McClendon v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1989
- Titsch v. Reliance Group, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1982
- Hunnewell v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1986
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.