Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
One of the most important decisions that corporate counsel must make in any case is whether to file a motion to dismiss. While a motion can put an early end to the case, it can also prompt a judge to make damaging pronouncements about the law, without the benefit of a fully developed factual record.
Until now, a defendant who moved to dismiss faced an uphill battle. Federal courts routinely held that a complaint was sufficient, as long as it provided the defendant with fair notice of the plaintiff's claims. Most courts followed the 'accepted rule' that a complaint should not be dismissed 'unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-6 (1957). The courts preferred to use discovery, not the pleadings, to weed out frivolous claims. The results were often frustrating for defendants. Armed with almost no facts, a plaintiff could file a complaint, defeat a motion to dismiss, and then go on a protracted and expensive fishing expedition.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.