Cases

23-1108 Singh v. Deloitte LLP UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2023 (Argued: May 24, 2024 Decided: December 10, 2024) No. 23-1108 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– RUPINDER SINGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, JEFFREY S. POPKIN, individually and on

Opinion by Judge SEDWICK; Dissent by Judge REINHARDT. OPINION SEDWICK, District Judge: Plaintiff-Appellant Bridget Gordon (“Gordon”) appeals the district court’s *749summary judgment in favor of Defendant Appellee Deloitte & Touche, LLP Group Long Term Disability Plan (the “Plan”), which is insured by Metropolitan L

619 F.3d 1151 (2010) Aileen MURPHY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DELOITTE & TOUCHE GROUP INSURANCE PLAN; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees. No. 09-2028. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. September 8, 2010. *1153 Robert J. Rosati, Fresno, CA, appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant.

631 F.Supp.2d 1213 (2009) Bud MINTON, Plaintiff, v. DELOITTE AND TOUCHE USA LLP PLAN, Defendant. No. C 08-1941 CW. United States District Court, N.D. California. June 8, 2009. *1214 Costa Nikoloutsopoulos, Laurence Fred Padway, Law Offices of Laurence F. Padway, Alameda, CA, for Plaintiff. Rebecca A. Hull, Cari Ann Cohorn,

OPINION AND ORDER BESOSA, District Judge. Before the Court are: 1.Plaintiff Wanda G. Miranda’s motion for partial summary judgment, statement of uncontested facts, and amended supporting memorandum, (Dockets 230, 230-1 & 248); the memorandum in opposition filed by defendants Deloitte Tax LLP (“Deloitte Tax”), Deloitte Services LP (“Deloitte Services”), Deloitte LLP, Deloitte

779 F.Supp.2d 619 (2011) Mohammed Zakaria MEMON, Plaintiff, v. DELOITTE CONSULTING, LLP, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. H-09-2766. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. March 17, 2011. *623 Salar Ali Ahmed, One Arena Place, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff. William John Bux, Locke Lord Bissell and Lid

752 F.Supp.2d 819 (2010) Michael MAUER, Plaintiff, v. DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP, Defendant. Case No. C-1-08-803. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division. October 26, 2010. *821 C. Mark Kingseed, Laura L. Wilson, Coolidge Wall Co., L.P.A., Dayton, OH, for Plaintiff. James M. L. Ferber, Columbus, OH, for D

OPINION SIDNEY H. STEIN, District Judge. This tort and contract action arises out of the auditing work done by Deloitte & Touche USA LLP and Deloitte & Touche LLP (collectively, “Deloitte”) on behalf of DVI, Inc, a defunct health care finance company. Dennis J. Buckley, DVI’s bankruptcy trustee, asserts that Deloitte’s conduct caused DVI’s collapse. Deloitte has now moved for summary ju

670 S.E.2d 818 (2008) SAYE v. DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP. No. A08A1172. Court of Appeals of Georgia. November 25, 2008. Reconsideration Denied December 11, 2008. *820 Buckley & Klein, Edward D. Buckley III, Atlanta, John Franklin Beasley Jr., Athens, for appellant. Sutherland, Valerie Strong Sanders, A

Smith, J. (dissenting). More than 50 bondholders of Reliance Group Holdings, Inc. (RGH) assigned claims to The RGH Liquidating Trust, which agreed to distribute to those bondholders the net proceeds resulting from any recovery on those claims. The Trust then brought this action asserting the claims of the bondholders (among others) against Deloitte & Touche and a Deloitte principal under New York law. The Trust alleges that D

Memorandum Opinion and Order GARY FEINERMAN, District Judge. Plaintiff Navistar International Corporation brought this action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against Defendant Deloitte & Touche LLP, alleging fraud, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, professional malpractice, negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and a violation of the

764 F.Supp.2d 1210 (2011) USACM LIQUIDATING TRUST and USA Capital Diversified Trust Deed Fund, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP and Victoria Loob, Defendants. No. 2:08-CV-00461-PMP-PAL. United States District Court, D. Nevada. February 16, 2011. *1213 Allan B. Diamond, Jon Maxwell Beatty, Levin Kim, Jacob J. Roberts

OPINION AND ORDER J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge. Plaintiff Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System (“IPERS” or “Plaintiff’) brought this action against Deloitte & Touche LLP (“D & T” or “Defendant”). IPERS’ claims derive from D & T’s audits of its client, registered broker-dealer WG Trading Company, LP (“WGTC”). IPERS alleges violations of § 10(b) of the Exchange Act (“th

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge. Plaintiff Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System (“IPERS”) brings this action against Deloitte & Touche LLP (“D & T”). The claims in this case arise out of D & T’s audits of its client, registered broker-dealer WG Trading Company, LP (“WGTC”). IPERS alleges violations of § 10(b) of the Exchange Act (“the '34 Act”), pursuant to SEC Rule 1

OPINION OF THE COURT Friedman, J. This appeal requires us to determine whether a federal statute, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (Pub L 105-353, 112 US Stat 3227, codified in pertinent part at 15 USC § 78bb [fj [SLUSA or the Act]), mandates the dismissal of fraud claims against an accounting firm asserted by plaintiff *200R

van Gestel, J. This matter is before the Court on a motion by the defendant, Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte”), pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6),1 to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The motion originally was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On February 25, 2004, and before argument on the motion, the case was transferred to this C

199 F.Supp.2d 461 (2002) Bert E. ARNLUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, Defendant. No. Civ. 3:01CV353. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. May 8, 2002. *462 *463 *464 *465

512 F.Supp.2d 920 (2007) UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Ramesh GUDUR, Plaintiff-Relator, v. DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, Defendant. Civil Action No. H-00-1169. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. March 15, 2007. *921 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SIM LAKE, District Judge. Pend

OPINION AND ORDER RAMOS, District Judge: This case, one of two related actions before this Court,1 arises from allegations of an independent auditor’s failure to detect fraud at ChinaCast Education Corporation, Inc. (“ChinaCast” or the “Company”), an educational services company in the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”), whose stock was traded on the NASDAQ for seve

535 F.Supp.2d 676 (2007) Grant THORNTON, LLP, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant; and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Grant Thornton, LLP, Defendant; and Gary Ellis, Plaintiff, v. Grant Thornton, LLP, Defendant. Civil Action Nos. 1:00-0655, 1:03-2129, 1:04-0043. United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia.