Amida Capital Management II, LLC v. Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Southern District Amida Capital Management II, LLC v. Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.

Amida Capital Management II, LLC v. Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.

Plaintiff:	Amida Capital Management II, LLC
Defendant:	Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.
Case Number:	1:2008cv05516
Filed:	June 18, 2008
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Securities/Commodities Office
County:	New York
Presiding Judge:	Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum
Nature of Suit:	Plaintiff
Cause of Action:	Federal Question
Jury Demanded By:	15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
November 12, 2009	Filing 44 OPINION #98235 For the foregoing reasons, defendants motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is granted. Leave to replead is not granted because further amendment would be futile. Rutolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). The Amended Complaint has not cured the defects of the initial complaint. Amida has not demonstrated how it might transform the facts pleaded into a sufficient allegation of fraud under § 10(b) of the S ecurities Exchange Act or New York common law. See Lewis ex rel. American Express Co. v. Robinson (In re American Express Co. Sec. Litig.), 39 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir. 1994). The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close the case. (Signed by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum on 11/10/2009) (jmi) Modified on 11/17/2009 (eef).

Date Filed

Document Text

November 12, 2009

Filing 44 OPINION #98235 For the foregoing reasons, defendants motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is granted. Leave to replead is not granted because further amendment would be futile. Rutolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). The Amended Complaint has not cured the defects of the initial complaint. Amida has not demonstrated how it might transform the facts pleaded into a sufficient allegation of fraud under § 10(b) of the S ecurities Exchange Act or New York common law. See Lewis ex rel. American Express Co. v. Robinson (In re American Express Co. Sec. Litig.), 39 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir. 1994). The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close the case. (Signed by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum on 11/10/2009) (jmi) Modified on 11/17/2009 (eef).

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Amida Capital Management II, LLC v. Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Amida Capital Management II, LLC
Represented By:	David Avi Rosenfeld
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?