Scranton Laminated Labels, Inc. v. Florimonte (In re Florimonte)

1 Citing case

  1. Prime Energy & Chem., LLC v. Tucker Arensberg, P.C.

    No. 2:18-cv-00345 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2019)   Cited 9 times
    Declining to dismiss plaintiff's fraud claim where defendant's argument "necessarily invokes contractual interpretation and is inapposite for purposes of a motion to dismiss, and, rather, more appropriate for potential resolution at the summary judgment stage"

    The previous disposition of a motion to dismiss may constitute the law of the case. See, e.g., In re Florimonte, 599 B.R. 497, 504 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2019) (denying a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court's denial of a previous motion to dismiss constituted the law of the case); see also United States v. Bogart, 4:12-cv-347, 2014 WL 7507260, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2014) (recommending denial of a motion to dismiss where the motion failed to "recite any of the extraordinary or compelling circumstances" that "would justify setting aside the law of the case and re-litigating [the] previously discredited claims"), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:12-cv-347, 2015 WL 136389 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2015). The doctrine of the law of the case, however, does not apply if a court did not previously address the subject issue.