Fuchs et al v. Seadrill Limited et al
Issek Fuchs and Todd Augenbaum |
Seadrill Limited, John Fredriksen, Per Wullf and Rune Magnus Lundetrae |
1:2014cv09642 |
December 5, 2014 |
US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
Foley Square Office |
Queens |
Lorna G. Schofield |
Securities/Commodities/Exchanges |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 90 OPINION AND ORDER re: 72 MOTION to Dismiss The Consolidated Amended Complaint. MOTION to Strike Allegations Regarding Non-Party John Fredriksen. filed by Per Wullf, Seadrill Limited, Alf Ragnar Lovdal, North Atlantic Dri lling Ltd., Rune Magnus Lundetrae. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the motion to strike is DENIED as moot. Given the deficient nature of the "failure to warn" theory of the Complaint, it is hig hly likely that any motion to amend the Complaint would be futile and therefore denied. Nevertheless, having requested leave to amend in the event of dismissal, Plaintiffs may file a motion to amend, which attaches a proposed amended complaint mark ed to show changes, within twenty-one days of this Opinion and Order. Defendants shall respond to any motion to amend within twenty-one days after the filing of any such motion. The Clerk of Court is directed to close Dkt. No. 72. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 6/20/2016) (kgo) |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.