Albert Fadem Trust v. Duke Energy Corp.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit November 15, 2004

Albert Fadem Trust v. Duke Energy Corp., 113 F. App'x 427 (2d Cir. 2004)

Opinion of the Court

SUMMARY ORDER

We have considered all of appellants’ arguments and, substantially for the reasons explained by the District Court in its Memorandum Order, entered October 17, 2003, we hold that each is without merit. We also find that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend where plaintiffs failed to file a proper motion to amend or a proposed amendment and where they have already had one opportunity to amend. See McLaughlin v. Anderson, 962 F.2d 187, 195 (2d Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Reference

Full Case Name: In re: DUKE ENERGY CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, The Albert Fadem Trust and Lloyd R. Fadem, as Trustee, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Wickerware, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan Barry Family, LP, Donald Goldstein, David L. Boushey, Margie Elstein, J.B. Pozner Trust, Alan Kushner, Henry Willet, Elliot S. Honig, Mikel Kinser, Franklin Richardson and Lucille Richardson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Consolidated v. Duke Energy Corp., Richard Priory and Robert Brace William Coley, Fred Fowler, Harvey Padewer and Deloitte & Touche, LLP, Sandra P. Meyer, Jeffrey L. Boyer, Richard J. Osborne, David L. Hauser, Keith G. Butler, Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. and Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., Consolidated Banc of America Securities, LLC, Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., Goldman, Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. and Warburg, LLC Consolidated
Cited By: 3 cases
Status: Published