Filed October 14, 2010
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“The court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”); Min Jin v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 84, 101 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[l]eave to amend should be freely granted”). DATED: October 14, 2010 Respectfully submitted, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP PATRICK J. COUGHLIN DANIEL S. DROSMAN X. JAY ALVAREZ JESSICA T. SHINNEFIELD NATHAN R. LINDELL DARRYL J. ALVARADO CHRISTINA A. ROYCE s/ JESSICA T. SHINNEFIELD JESSICA T. SHINNEFIELD Case 1:09-cv-08387-SAS Document 158 Filed 10/14/10 Page 33 of 38 - 26 - 582202_1 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3301 Telephone: 619/231-1058 619/231-7423 (fax) patc@rgrdlaw.com ddrosman@rgrdlaw.com jaya@rgrdlaw.com jshinnefield@rgrdlaw.com nlindell@rgrdlaw.com dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com croyce@rgrdlaw.com ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP SAMUEL H. RUDMAN JARRETT S. CHARO 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: 631/367-7100 631/367-1173 (fax) srudman@rgrdlaw.com jcharo@rgrdlaw.com ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP LUKE O. BROOKS JASON C. DAVIS Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street,
Filed October 14, 2010
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“The court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”); Min Jin v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 84, 101 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[l]eave to amend should be freely granted”)
Filed March 3, 2010
But where, as here, defendants knew at the time they issue statements that those statements are false, disclaimers are ineffective. Case 1:09-cv-08387-SAS Document 64 Filed 03/03/10 Page 28 of 32 - 24 - 507482_1 Min Jin v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 84, 101 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[l]eave to amend should be freely granted”). DATED: March 3, 2010 Respectfully submitted, COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP PATRICK J. COUGHLIN DANIEL S. DROSMAN MICHAEL F. GHOZLAND JESSICA T. SHINNEFIELD NATHAN R. LINDELL CHRISTINA A. ROYCE DARRYL J. ALVARADO s/ DANIEL S. DROSMAN DANIEL S. DROSMAN 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3301 Telephone: 619/231-1058 619/231-7423 (fax) COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP SAMUEL H. RUDMAN JARRETT S. CHARO 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 1177 Telephone: 631/367-7100 631/367-1173 (fax) COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP LUKE O. BROOKS JASON C. DAVIS 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-288-4545 415/288-4534 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiff Case 1:09-cv-08387-SAS Document 64 Filed 03/03/10 Page 29 of 32 507482_1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 3, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoi
Filed March 3, 2010
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“The court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”); Min Jin v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 84, 101 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[l]eave to amend should be freely granted”). DATED: March 3, 2010 Respectfully submitted, s/ JESSICA T. SHINNEFIELD JESSICA T. SHINNEFIELD Case 1:09-cv-08387-SAS Document 70 Filed 03/03/10 Page 31 of 35 - 26 - 507419_1 COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP PATRICK J. COUGHLIN DANIEL S. DROSMAN MICHAEL F. GHOZLAND JESSICA T. SHINNEFIELD NATHAN R. LINDELL CHRISTINA A. ROYCE DARRYL J. ALVARADO 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3301 Telephone: 619/231-1058 619/231-7423 (fax) COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP SAMUEL H. RUDMAN JARRETT S. CHARO 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 1177 Telephone: 631/367-7100 631/367-1173 (fax) COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP LUKE O. BROOKS JASON C. DAVIS 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-288-4545 415/288-4534 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiff Case 1:09-cv-08387-SAS Document 70 Filed 03/03/10 Page 32 of 35 507419
Filed March 6, 2015
The Court “has the discretion to deny leave [to amend] if there is a good reason for it.” Jin v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 84, 101 (2d Cir. 2002). In this case, Plaintiff has already had two opportunities to plead his claims and there is no reason to believe that the allegations in yet another amended complaint would be substantially different or more well-founded.
Filed November 18, 2011
‖ Gordon, 232 F.3d at 116 (new trial called for given improper instructions on the elements plaintiff needed to prove). See also, e.g., Jacques v. DiMarzio, 386 F.3d 192, 204 (2d Cir. 2004); Bank of China v. NBM LLC, 359 F.3d 171, 176-80 (2d Cir. 2004); Jin v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2002); Pahuta v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 173 F.3d 125, 135-36 (2d Cir. 1999) (failure to adequately inform jury of legal elements); Holzapfel v. Town of Newburgh, 145 F.3d 516 (2d Cir. 1998) (improper verdict question and instructions on compensable work under FLSA; these errors ―could have prejudiced plaintiff‖ because they ―might well‖ have led to a different result); Anderson v. Branen, 17 F.3d 552, 557-58 (2d Cir. 4 See also id. at 70 (―We reject the notion… that a court's earlier incorrect statements are necessarily ‗cured‘ so long as the charge contains the correct standard elsewhere‖).
Filed September 29, 2011
of N.Y., Inc. v. Emerson Telcom. Prods., 395 F. App‟x 752, 753 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Jin v. Metro. Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 84, 101 (2d Cir. 2002) (citing Foman, 371 U.S. at 182)) (remanding case to district court either to justify its decision to deny leave to amend or to grant leave); see also Safety Mgmt. Sys. v. Safety Software Ltd., No. 10 Civ. 1593, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14569 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2011) (citing Foman and rejecting argument that amendment of counterclaims would be futile, instead granting leave to amend counterclaim) (Holwell, J.); Jones v. New York City Human Resources Admin., 539 F. Supp. 795, 800-01 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (allowing plaintiff to add a claim even after final judgment had been entered).