defendant notice claim (Delaware) · Go Syfert
← Delaware issues

defendant notice claim in Delaware

30 Delaware opinions name it 3 courts 2014–2026 6 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Delaware courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (9)

CaseFollowedCited
Central Mortgage Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLCgreen
del · 2011 · cited in 21 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2014–2026
2 sentences

2026LLC, 27 A.3d 531, 536 (Del. 2011). 18 Id. 19 Id. at 537 n.13. 21 Under a notice pleading standard, a court should “accept even vague allegations in the Complaint as ‘well-pleaded’ if they provide the defendant notice of the claim.”20 But Delaware courts take a stricter approach when evaluating investor claims that could impose asymmetric costs and thus carry significant settlement value if they survive a pleading-stage motion.

2026LLC, 27 A.3d 531, 536 (Del. 2011). 18 Id. 19 Id. at 537 n.13. 21 Under a notice pleading standard, a court should “accept even vague allegations in the Complaint as ‘well-pleaded’ if they provide the defendant notice of the claim.”20 But Delaware courts take a stricter approach when evaluating investor claims that could impose asymmetric costs and thus carry significant settlement value if they survive a pleading-stage motion.

1821
Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp.green
del · 2002 · cited in 6 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2014–2022
2 sentences

2020When considering a defendant's motion to dismiss, a trial court should accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in the Complaint as true, accept even vague allegations in the Complaint as ‘well-pleaded’ if they provide the defendant notice of the claim, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, and deny the motion unless the plaintiff could not recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof.”). 101 Id. 102 Am.

2019When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint as true, accept even vague allegations in the complaint as well-pled if they provide the defendant notice of the claim, draw all reasonable inference in favor of the nonmoving party, and deny the motion unless the plaintiff could not “recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof.” Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp., 812 A.2d 894, 896-97 (Del. 2002) (quoting Kofron v. Amoco Chems. 3 Corp., 441 A.2d 226, 227 (Del

46
Winshall v. Viacom International Inc.green
del · 2013 · cited in 4 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2014–2015
2 sentences

2015Capital Holdings LLC, 27 A.3d 531, 536 (Del. 2011); see also Winshall v. Viacom Int’l., Inc., 76 A.3d 808 , 813 n.12 (Del. 2013). 24 the Complaint as true, accept even vague allegations in the Complaint as ‘well-pleaded’ if they provide the defendant notice of the claim, [and] draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” 61 1.

2015Capital Holdings LLC, 27 A.3d 531, 536 (Del. 2011); see also Winshall v. Viacom Int’l., Inc., 76 A.3d 808 , 813 n.12 (Del. 2013). 24 the Complaint as true, accept even vague allegations in the Complaint as ‘well-pleaded’ if they provide the defendant notice of the claim, [and] draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” 61 1.

34
VLIW TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.green
del · 2003 · cited in 2 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2020–2023
2 sentences

2023For example, the penultimate paragraph of his “Nature of the Action” section reads: Mr. Hoffman seeks reimbursement for his legal expenses, including attorneys’ fees, which have been incurred in connection with First Wave’s inquiry or investigation and to oppose actions taken by First Wave as a result of that inquiry or investigation, including but not limited to his efforts to rectify his unlawful exclusion from the Board.110 And in discussing the Company’s October 20 Letter, the Complaint explains: “The letter thus purports to convey conclusions of an investigation or an inquiry conducted tr

2020When considering a defendant’s motion to dismiss, a trial court should accept all well- pleaded factual allegations in the Complaint as true, accept even vague allegations in the Complaint as ‘well-pleaded’ if they provide the defendant notice of the claim, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, and deny the motion unless the plaintiff could not recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof.”). 43 VLIW Tech., LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 840 A.2d 606, 611 (Del. 2003) (“In alleging a breach of contract, a plaintiff need not plead specific f

22
Klein v. Sunbeam Corp.green
del · 1952 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023For example, the penultimate paragraph of his “Nature of the Action” section reads: Mr. Hoffman seeks reimbursement for his legal expenses, including attorneys’ fees, which have been incurred in connection with First Wave’s inquiry or investigation and to oppose actions taken by First Wave as a result of that inquiry or investigation, including but not limited to his efforts to rectify his unlawful exclusion from the Board.110 And in discussing the Company’s October 20 Letter, the Complaint explains: “The letter thus purports to convey conclusions of an investigation or an inquiry conducted tr

11
Kofron v. Amoco Chemicals Corp.green
del · 1982 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint as true, accept even vague allegations in the complaint as well-pled if they provide the defendant notice of the claim, draw all reasonable inference in favor of the nonmoving party, and deny the motion unless the plaintiff could not “recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof.” Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp., 812 A.2d 894, 896-97 (Del. 2002) (quoting Kofron v. Amoco Chems. 3 Corp., 441 A.2d 226, 227 (Del

11
Ramunno v. Cawleygreen
del · 1998 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint as true, accept even vague allegations in the complaint as well-pled if they provide the defendant notice of the claim, draw all reasonable inference in favor of the nonmoving party, and deny the motion unless the plaintiff could not “recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof.” Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp., 812 A.2d 894, 896-97 (Del. 2002) (quoting Kofron v. Amoco Chems. 3 Corp., 441 A.2d 226, 227 (Del

11
Precision Air, Inc. v. Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc.green
del · 1995 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint as true, accept even vague allegations in the complaint as well-pled if they provide the defendant notice of the claim, draw all reasonable inference in favor of the nonmoving party, and deny the motion unless the plaintiff could not “recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof.” Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp., 812 A.2d 894, 896-97 (Del. 2002) (quoting Kofron v. Amoco Chems. 3 Corp., 441 A.2d 226, 227 (Del

11
Price v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.green
del · 2011 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014Most of 26 Id. at 536 (citing Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp., 812 A.2d 894, 896-97 (Del. 2002)). 27 Id. at 537 & n.13. 28 Price v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 26 A.3d 162, 166 (Del. 2011) (citing Clinton v. Enter.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Wood v. State green
del · 2015
1 sentence

2018As discussed below, I find that Plaintiffs have stated a reasonably conceivable claim that there was a control group, and thus, I do not consider Schuler’s arguments premised on the lack of a controlling stockholder. 63 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015). 64 As discussed below, I find that Plaintiffs have stated a reasonably conceivable claim that the entire fairness standard of review should apply, so I do not address the Corwin argument asserted by the Director Defendants. 13 A. Standard of Review When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6),

12018–2018
Tbk Partners, Ltd. v. Western Union Corporation, Frances D. Spier, Objectors-Appellants green
ca2 · 1982
2 sentences

2016Procedural Standard of Review In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6), the Court will accept all well-pleaded facts as true, accept even vague allegations in the complaint if they provide the defendant notice of the claim, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, and deny the motion unless the plaintiff could not recover same set of operative facts where both hinged on whether disclosures in the same proxy rendered the same shareholder vote invalid). 132 TBK P’rs, 675 F.2d at 460 . 1

2016Procedural Standard of Review In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6), the Court will accept all well-pleaded facts as true, accept even vague allegations in the complaint if they provide the defendant notice of the claim, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, and deny the motion unless the plaintiff could not recover same set of operative facts where both hinged on whether disclosures in the same proxy rendered the same shareholder vote invalid). 132 TBK P’rs, 675 F.2d at 460 . 1

12016–2016

Statutes the citing opinions construe

DE § 10 Del. C. § 3104 (4) DE § 8 Del. C. § 141 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

DE 30 (2014–2026) CA 5 (2013–2015) GA 4 (1991–2007) CT 2 (1902–1935) AK 2 (2014–2014) UT 2 (2010–2025) TX 2 (2016–2023) AL 2 (1904–1993)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check