Cluster 8507935
green
· 80 citation events
across 10 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
green
David Gonzalez v. BAM Trading Services, Inc., d/b/a Binance US, a Delaware corporation; Binance Holdings, Ltd… (2026)
See M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010) (“[A]lthough issue preclusion is an affirmative defense, it may be raised in a motion to dismiss under [Rule] 12(b)(6).”). 2 On March 12, 2026, Binance filed a correspondence (ECF No. 78) advising the Court the Opinion (ECF No. 76) and accompanying Order (ECF No. 77) erroneously state the Motion to Dismiss had and BAM and Binance (collectively, “Defendants”) filed Replies (ECF Nos. 70, 71).
“[A]lthough issue preclusion is an affirmative defense, it may be raised in a motion to dismiss under [Rule] 12(b)(6).”
green
David Gonzalez v. BAM Trading Services, Inc., d/b/a Binance US, Binance Holdings, Ltd, d/b/a Binance, Changpe… (2026)
See M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010) (“[A]lthough issue preclusion is an affirmative defense, it may be raised in a motion to dismiss under [Rule] 12(b)(6).”).
“[A]lthough issue preclusion is an affirmative defense, it may be raised in a motion to dismiss under [Rule] 12(b)(6).”
green
Ian Behar, Daniel Blumkin, and Ryan Sasson v. Federal Insurance Company, Argonaut Insurance Company and RSUI … (2026)
Sept. 8, 2023) (citing M & M Stone Co. v. Pa., 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010)); see M & M, 388 F. App’x at 162 (“a court that examines a transcript of a prior proceeding to find facts converts a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.”) (quoting Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 221 n.3 (3d Cir. 2004)).
“a court that examines a transcript of a prior proceeding to find facts converts a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.”
green
Perirx, LLC v. Agnew (2025)
See M&M Stone Co., 388 Fed.Appx. at 162 (“It is well- established that a court should consider only the allegations in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, and documents that form the basis of a claim.”) (citation modified) (emphasis added).
“It is well- established that a court should consider only the allegations in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, and documents that form the basis of a claim.”
green
WILKINS v. Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc. (2025)
See M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010) (“[A]lthough issue preclusion is an affirmative defense, it may be raised in a motion to dismiss under Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6).”).
“[A]lthough issue preclusion is an affirmative defense, it may be raised in a motion to dismiss under Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6).”
green
Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Accord Healthcare Inc. (2023)
See M & M Stone, 388 F. App’x at 162 (“[A] court that examines a transcript of a prior proceeding to find facts converts a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.”) (quoting Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 221 n.3 (3d Cir. 2004)).
“[A] court that examines a transcript of a prior proceeding to find facts converts a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.”
green
In Re: Samson Resources Corp. (2021)
M&M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010) (“although issue preclusion is an affirmative defense, it may be raised in a motion to dismiss”) (citing Connelly Found. v. Sch.
“although issue preclusion is an affirmative defense, it may be raised in a motion to dismiss”
In addition to the complaint’s factual allegations, the Court may consider “exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, and documents that form the basis of a claim.” M&M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 Fed.
In addition to the complaint’s factual allegations, the Court may consider “exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, and documents that form the basis of a claim.” M&M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 Fed.
internal quotation marks and citation omitted
green
Centerview Partners Holdings LP v. David A. Handler (2025)
It is “axiomatic that a court must still consider the prior 9 adjudication in order to determine whether issue preclusion bars that plaintiff’s claims.” Id. (quoting M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010)).
M&M Stone Co, v. Pennsylvania, 388 Fed.Appx. 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Connelly Found. v. Sch.
citing Connelly Found. v. Sch. Dist. of Haverford Twp., 461 F.2d 495, 496 (3d Cir. 1972)
green
WHITE v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA (2024)
M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010).
green
Fishbein v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (2024)
(Doc. 6-3 at 13, 26).1 On July 22, 2021— 1 We take judicial notice of the docket sheet from the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas bearing case number 2021-CV-06221-CV. , 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010); the last day of the limitations period—Fishbein filed a for a writ of summons in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas. ( at 6).
green
WHITE v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA (2024)
M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010).
green
NATIVIDAD v. RALEY (2024)
Ltd., 181 F.3d 410, 426 (3d Cir. 1999); M&M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (8d Cir. 2010).
green
FINK v. BISHOP (2024)
M&M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010).
green
NYPE v. SAM (2024)
Cf M & M Stone Co. y, Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010) (holding that judicial notice of other litigation on a motion to dismiss is appropriate where the court relied on other courts’ conclusions for its issue preclusion analysis “[w]ithout considering [their] underlying factual analyses”). “[E]xamin|[ing] a transcript of a prior proceeding to find facts converts a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.” Jd.
holding that judicial notice of other litigation on a motion to dismiss is appropriate where the court relied on other courts’ conclusions for its issue preclusion analysis “[w]ithout considering [their] underlying factual analyses”
green
NEUTRAL POSTURE, INC. v. MILLERKNOLL, INC. (2023)
M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010).
green
Wireless Discovery LLC v. Eharmony, Inc. (2023)
M& M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010).
green
Myers Operations, Inc. v. Noles (2023)
Pa. Nov. 14, 2022) (citing M&M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010)).° Therefore, other than the existence of the State Court Action and entry of the Judgment and Order therein, the remaining matters which Plaintiffs and Defendant seek this Court to take judicial notice are not adequately supported and/or are not appropriate at this time, and judicial notice will not be taken. °See Brody v. Hankin, 145 F. App’x 768, 772 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing South…
green
Myers Operations, Inc. v. Noles (2023)
Pa. Nov. 14, 2022) (citing M&M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010)).° Therefore, other than the existence of the State Court Action and entry of the Judgment and Order therein, the remaining matters which Plaintiffs and Defendant seek this Court to take judicial notice are not adequately supported and/or are not appropriate at this time, and judicial notice will not be taken. °See Brody v. Hankin, 145 F. App’x 768, 772 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing South…
green
Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc. (2022)
M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010).
green
THE TRUSTEES OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST OF THE APOSTOLIC FAITH, INC. v. P… (2022)
They consist of various court filings and other documents confirming that Plaintiffs and Shelton acted in concert with each other or that, at a minimum, Shelton represented their interests.”).) The Court will not do so, especially at this stage of the litigation as the Court is simultaneously ruling on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.3 Cf. M&M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010) (“In the context of deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) 3 Although Patterson’s mo…
“In the context of deciding a Rule 12(b)(6
green
PALUMBO v. U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (2022)
The concepts of issue and claim preclusion are related, but “they separately govern the preclusive effects of former adjudication.” M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App'x 156, 161 (3d Cir. 2010).
green
OGROD v. DEVLIN (2022)
A-D.) When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion that raises issue preclusion, we may “consider the prior adjudication in order to determine whether issue preclusion bars that plaintiff’s claims.” M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010). “[A] prior judicial opinion constitutes a public record of which a court may take judicial notice.” Id. (citing Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 221 n.3 (3d Cir. 2004)).
green
DUKES v. WOOD (2022)
M & M Stone Co. v. Pa., 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010). eyeglasses.
green
Titan Medical Group, LLC v. Virgin Islands Government Hospitals and Health Facilities Corporation (2021)
See Rycoline Products, Inc. v. C & W Unlimited, 109 F.3d 883, 886 (3d Cir. 1997); M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010).
The party invoking collateral estoppel bears the burden of establishing its application, see Commonwealth v. Buffington, 828 A.2d 1024, 1033 (Pa. 2003) (citation omitted), and may raise the defense in a motion to dismiss, see M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010) (nonprecedential) (citing Connelly Found. v. Sch.
nonprecedential
green
BEGUM v. MICHAEL HARRISON (2021)
(See Mot. at 16–17.) Issue preclusion is an affirmative defense, M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted), so Harrison bore the burden to show its application was apparent from the face of the complaint, see Lupian v. Joseph Cory Holdings LLC, 905 F.3d 127, 130 (3d Cir. 2018).
citation omitted
M & M Stone Co., 388 F. App’x at 162 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 6 For the same reasons, we will not consider the additional documents that Bracero attaches to her opposition briefs. 117 F.3d at 729 , Third Circuit courts have “allowed pleadings with a thin factual record to survive a motion to dismiss.” Wadley v. Kiddie Acad.
internal quotation marks and citation omitted
green
GLOVER v. COHEN (2021)
Where, as here, a Rule 12(b)(6) motion raises issue preclusion, and the plaintiff has not included the substance of the prior adjudication in the body of, or attachments to, his complaint, “it is axiomatic that a court must still consider the prior adjudication in order to determine whether issue preclusion bars that plaintiff’s claims.” M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010).
green
Uniloc 2017 LLC v. ZenPayroll, Inc. (2021)
M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010).
green
MCATEER v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY (2020)
Defendant, however, informed Plaintiff that the Petition to Appoint and Compel should have been filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Here, the decisions from the Pennsylvania state courts regarding this case are a matter of public record and are explicitly relied upon in the Amended Complaint. “[A] prior judicial opinion constitutes a public record of which a court may take judicial notice.” M & M Stone Co. v. Pa., 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010); see also…
green
CARROLL v. MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY OF PA (2020)
Our Court of Appeals has directed "a prior judicial opinion constitutes a public record of which a court may take judicial notice." M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App'x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010).
green
Moffitt v. Tunkhannock Area School District (2020)
M&M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010) (“With respect to when a court may consider the preclusive effect of a state court judgment, although issue preclusion is an affirmative defense, it may be raised in a motion to dismiss under Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6).” (quoting Connelly Found. v. Sch.
“With respect to when a court may consider the preclusive effect of a state court judgment, although issue preclusion is an affirmative defense, it may be raised in a motion to dismiss under Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6
green
EL v. PEOPLE'S EMERGENCY CENTER (2020)
Dist. of Haverford Twp., 461 F.2d 495, 496 (3d Cir. 1972). 63 M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010). 64 Toscano v. Conn. Gen.
green
STURGEON v. PHARMERICA CORPORATION (2020)
Two are administrative guidance manuals issued by CMS.70 The third is a report on standard practices within the long- term care pharmacy industry, which appears to have been commissioned by CMS and prepared by a consultant, the Lewin Group.71 Relators argue that the Court should decline to take judicial notice of these reports because they are not authenticated.72 PharMerica responds that information found on government 66 M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 1…
“In the context of deciding a Rule 12(b)(6
M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 Fed.Appx. 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010); In re Indian Palms Associates, Ltd., 61 F.3d 197 , 205 (3d Cir. 1995). .
May 13, 2016) (quoting M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010)). 32 Pyott v. La.
Ch. 2000), aff’d, 783 A.2d 543 (Del. 2001). 18 plaintiff’s claims.” 25 Consequently, courts will take judicial notice of the prior adjudication and resulting opinions, but “only to establish the existence of the opinion, and not for the truth of the facts asserted in the opinion.”26 This is the approach I use in deciding the present motion to dismiss.27 In assessing a motion to dismiss a derivative action based on issue preclusion, the Court should look exclusively to the el…
Moreover, “a court may take judicial notice of public records.” See Grynberg v. Total Compagnie Francaise Des Petroles, 891 F.Supp.2d 663, 675 (D.Del.2012) (citing M & M Stone Co. v. Pa. Dep’t of Envt’l Prot., 388 Fed.Appx. 156, 162 (3d Cir.2010)).
green
Grynberg v. Total Compagnie Francaise des Petroles (2012)
Prot., 388 Fed.Appx. 156, 162 (3d Cir.2010). .
green
Russo v. City of Philadelphia (2011)
M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 Fed.Appx. 156, 162 (3d Cir.2010).
See M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Connelly Found. v. Sch.
citing Connelly Found. v. Sch. Dist. of Haverford Twp., 461 F.2d 495, 496 (3d Cir. 1972
See M & M Stone Co. v. Pa., 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010) (“In the context of deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion that raises issue preclusion concerns, and where a [party] has not included the existence or substance of the prior adjudications in the body of, or attachments to, its complaint, it is axiomatic that a court must still consider the prior adjudication in order to determine whether issue preclusion bars that [party]’s claims.”); Sturgeon v. Pharmerica Corp., 43…
“In the context of deciding a Rule 12(b)(6
green
KURTZ v. WESTFIELD INSURANCE (2022)
See M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010).
green
McNeilly v. City of Pittsburgh (2014)
See Grynberg v. Total Compagnie Francaise Des Petroles, 891 F.Supp.2d 663, 675 (D.Del.2012) (citing M & M Stone Co. v. Pa. Dep’t of Envt’l Prat., 388 Fed.Appx. 156, 162 (3d Cir.2010)).
green
Lewis v. Guadagno (2011)
See M & M Stone Co. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 388 Fed.Appx. 156, 161 (3d Cir.2010) ("With regard to issues first presented to a state tribunal, the federal courts have consistently accorded preclusive effect to issues decided by state courts, and, thus 'res judicata and collateral estoppel not only reduce unnecessary litigation and foster reliance on adjudication, but also promote the comity between state and federal courts that has been recognized as a bulwark of the…
green
Azer Scientific Incorporated v. Quidel Corporation (2021)
Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010) (“[A] court should consider only the allegations in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, and documents that form the basis of a claim.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
“[A] court should consider only the allegations in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, and documents that form the basis of a claim.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
green
FINK v. BISHOP (2021)
See, e.g., M&M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App’x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010); Gage v. Warren Twp.