Main Menu

District Court Denies Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint

Posted In Class Actions
Brashears v. 1717 Capital Management, 2005 WL 2585247 (D.Del., October 13, 2005). Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The Complaint alleged that Defendants 1717 Capital Management and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. d/b/a Nationwide Provident violated § 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10(b)-5 through their insurance sales practices. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion. The court found that even if amended, the revised complaint could not meet the heightened pleading requirements. The First Amended Complaint was dismissed partially on grounds of failure to plead with particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Although Plaintiff endeavored to correct that shortcoming, the Court found that he failed to correct the other deficiencies in the complaint. Specifically, the Second Amended Complaint failed to sufficiently allege a materially false or misleading statement or omission, or loss causation. Thus, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. Share


  • US News Best Law Firms
  • JD Supra Readers Choice Award
  • Delaware Today Top Lawyers
  • Super Lawyers
Back to Page