New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

12(b)(6): To What Extent May A Court Consider An Expert Report Or Affidavit Annexed To A Complaint In Deciding A Dismissal Motion?

Download PDF

Alix v. McKinsey & Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145872, at *82-83, 2023 WL 5344892, at *27 (SDNY Aug. 18, 2023):

***

Finally, [Defendant] McKinsey contends that a joint declaration from three bankruptcy professionals that Alix appended to the Complaint, see ECF No. 177-3 ("Decl."), must be stricken. Defs.' Mem. 94. The Court agrees.21 Although courts may consider materials extrinsic to the complaint — as the Court has done in this case — such materials [*83]  must be incorporated by reference into the complaint or otherwise integral to it. Empire Merchs., 902 F.3d at 139; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c). Affidavits — even when submitted with a complaint — are not "written instruments" that may be considered. Smith v. Hogan, 794 F.3d 249, 254 (2d Cir. 2015); Ong v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 294 F. Supp. 3d 199, 223 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). Ong is especially instructive. There, the plaintiff submitted an expert declaration with the complaint. The court refused to consider it on the ground that it "was created long after the events giving rise to [the] litigation and is thus not the type of 'written instrument' falling within the purview of Rule 10(c)." Ong, 294 F. Supp. 3d at 224. The declaration "was drafted for the purpose of this litigation; Plaintiffs therefore could not have relied on its terms while drafting their complaint." Id. (emphasis in original). So too here. As [Plaintiff] Alix himself acknowledges, see Pl.'s Opp'n 95, the expert declaration was plainly drafted for the purpose of litigation. Moreover, the declaration relies on the Complaint, e.g., Decl. ¶¶ 24, 26, not vice versa. Accordingly, the declaration must be and is stricken.

Footnote 21.  The fact that "Defendants did not file a motion to strike or otherwise invoke Rule 12(f)," Pl.'s Opp'n 94, is neither here nor there. Among other things, Rule 12(f) explicitly provides that a court "may act . . . on its own" to "strike from a pleading . . . any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(1) (emphasis added). That is, the Court would have been on firm ground striking the joint declaration even without a motion.

[Ed. Note:  The key is the penultimate sentence of the text:  "[T]he declaration relies on the Complaint, . . . not vice versa."  In the vice versa scenario, reliance on an expert may be invaluable to sustain a complaint.  See, e.g., E. Ohman J:Or Fonder AB v. Nvidia Corp., No 21-15604, Slip Op. at 19-23, 41-42 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2023).]

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

Depositions: Improper to Object to Form to Straightforward Questions (Not Compound, Vague, Leading or Speculative) — Lack of Foundation Objection Improper in 30(b)(6) Deposition — Improper to “Educate” Witness During Breaks of 30(b)(6) Deposition Through Witness Calls to Knowledgeable Corporate Colleagues — Magistrate Judge May Impose Financial Sanctions

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice