Legal Opinion
Herman Friedlander, Etc., Cross-Appellees v. Jerry C. Nims, Timex Corporation, Cross-Appellant
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided March 19, 1985No. 84-8110PublishedCited by 127 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
VANCE, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Friedlander contends that the district court erred in granting defendant Timex’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for failure to plead fraud with particularity as required by Fed.R. Civ.P. 9(b). Because we find that appellant deliberately chose to forego his opportunity to cure the defects of his complaint despite specific and repeated warnings from the trial judge that such amendment was necessary to avoid dismissal, we affirm.
Friedlander brought this class action on behalf of the minority shareholders of Nim-slo Technology, Inc. (Nimslo)…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- John W. Dussouy, Jr. v. Gulf Coast Investment CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
- Gross v. Diversified Mortgage InvestorsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1977
- Ollie McKinnis Jr. v. Lt. James MoselyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1982
- Elster v. AlexanderDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1977
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by127 opinions
- In Re Glenfed, Inc. Securities LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Rodriguez-Bruno v. Doral MortgageCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
- United States Ex Rel. Clausen v. Laboratory Corp. of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2002
- Robert G. Hayduk v. Vincent T. LannaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985
- Bank v. PittCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1991
122 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.