Quote:
Originally Posted by Fbone
She didn't use the terms allegedly, suspected of, or charged with collusion.
In the end, it may not be her decision if it goes to jury.
|
Actually, she did - those terms are spread liberally throughout the 55 page opinion
http://gigaompaidcontent.files.wordp...der-on-mtd.pdf
A quick search gave me 25 hits on "alleged" in the opinion.
Darryl gave a pretty good explanation of the process for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim - which is basically a claim even if what you say is true, it's not legally actionable. Here's the standard of review from the opinion:
Quote:
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
A trial court considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion must
“accept as true all factual statements alleged in the complaint
and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving
party.” McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 191
(2d Cir. 2007).
|
IOW, the court isn't *finding* that the allegations are true; it is treating the allegations as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss, including any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the allegations.