Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. et al
| Bradley D. Flora |
| Pasquale Conte, Irwin D. Simon and The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. |
| 2:2016cv04581 |
| August 17, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Steven I. Locke |
| Leonard D. Wexler |
| Securities/Commodities |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 78 m(a) Securities Exchange Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
148
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: For the stated reasons (Please see Order for further details), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: I. Plaintiffs' objections are OVERRULED; II. The R&R is ADOPTED as to the scienter-related recommendation s and the dismissal recommendation; III. Defendants' Dismissal Motions (ECF Nos. 113 , 116 ) are GRANTED; and IV. The Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly and, thereafter, mark this case CLOSED. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 9/29/2023. (AF)
|
|
Filing
122
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER: For the reasons stated above, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is granted in its entirety. The Court finds that any future amendments would be futile. The Court already gav e the Lead Plaintiffs a chance to remedy the deficiencies in their allegations, and the SAC failed to include sufficient facts to address the CAC's inadequacies. Further, the Lead Plaintiffs have not sought leave to submit any additional amendme nts or communicated that they possess facts that could overcome the problems identified by the Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the SAC with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close the case. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 4/6/2020. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
|
Filing
106
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER re 81 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. For the reasons stated above, the Defendants motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is granted, and the complaint is dismissed without prejudi ce. The Lead Plaintiffs represent that they have acquired information from additional former employees that were uncovered during the Lead Plaintiffs' investigation, and requested leave to amend in the event that the Court found that they did n ot adequately plead any of their claims. (See ECF No. 99 at 10). The Court finds that this is sufficient reason to grant leave to amend the complaint. The Lead Plaintiffs are directed to file a second amended complaint within thirty days of entry of this order. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 3/29/2019. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
|
Filing
89
Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke:Motion Hearing held on 1/11/2018. Plaintiffs motion to lift the stay, DE 82 , is denied for the reasons set forth on the record. See Gruber v. Gilbertson, 16 CV 727, 2017 W L 3891701 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2017); Kuriakose v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Co., 674 F. Supp.2d 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Westchester Putnam Heavy & Hwy Laborers Local 60, 08 Civ. 9528, 2009 WL 1285845 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2009). Plaintiffs have failed to establi sh the necessary undue prejudice required to lift the stay. In the Courts view, the fact that Defendants motion papers on their motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) may make certain statements attacking the viability of the Corrected Consolid ated Class Action Complaint (Complaint) by relying on statements outside the Complaint is irrelevant and fails to establish any prejudice whatsoever. The Court will address the motion to dismiss on the merits of the allegations set forth in the Complaint and nothing in the Defendants motion papers will prejudice Plaintiffs with respect to that analysis. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke on 1/11/2018. (Gandiosi, Kristin)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER for Consolidation, Appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs, and Approval of Selection of Co-Lead Counsel as to Case Nos. 16-cv-4581 (ADS)(SIL), 16-cv-4589 (ADS)(SIL) and 16-cv-4597 (ADS)(SIL). The above-captioned actions are consolidated for all p urposes (the Consolidated Action). This Order (the Order) shall apply to the Consolidated Action and to each case that relates to the same subject matter that is subsequently filed in this Court or is transferred to this Court, and is consolidated w ith the Consolidated Action. A Master File is established for this proceeding. The Master File shall be Case No. 16-cv-04581. The Clerk shall file all pleadings in the Master File and note such filings on the Master Docket. Every pleading in the Con solidated Action shall have the following caption: see Order. Each new case that arises out of the subject matter of the Consolidated Action shall be consolidated with the Consolidated Action as further set forth herein. The Co-Lead Plaintiffs choice of counsel is approved, and accordingly, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Goldberg Law PC, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, are approved as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §77z-1(a)(3)(B)(v) and 15 U. S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). As previously ordered by the Court, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated amended complaint within sixty days of the entry of this Order, and the Defendants shall file a responsive pleading within thirty days thereafter. SEE ATTACHED ORDER for details. It is SO ORDERED by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 6/5/2017. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
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 Eastern 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.
