Starr Investments Cayman II Inc. v. China MediaExpress Holdings Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER Granting Plaintiff leave to file its fourth amended complaint. All pending Motions to Dismiss (see D.I. 61 , 64 , 69 , 72 , 80 , 86 , 95 ) are Dismissed without prejudice. The Court will defer ruling on D.I. 197 until after resolution of the new motions to dismiss (see Memorandum Order for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 8/20/2013. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
STARR INVESTMENTS CAYMAN
Civil Action No. 11-233-RGA
HOLDINGS INC., et al.,
Plaintiff filed a securities complaint on March 18, 2011. (D.I. 1). After some defendants
filed motions to dismiss, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (D.I. 25). All defendants
responded with motions to dismiss (D.I. 61 [Bird and Green], 64 [DTT], 69 [Lam], 72 [Cheng,
CME], 80 [Bright Elite, Thousand Space], 86 [Robbins], 95 [Lin and Lin]). Lengthy briefing
followed, with the last briefbeing filed October 12,2012. (D.I. 153). The Court held oral
argument on November 16,2012. Plaintifffiled a proposed second amended complaint on
December 7, 2012. (D.I. 158). Plaintiff filed a revised proposed second amended complaint
(hereinafter, the "third amended complaint") on March 11,2012. (D.I. 174). Plaintiff filed a
further revised proposed second amended complaint (hereinafter, the "fourth amended
complaint") on July 24, 2013. 1 (D.I. 199). Meanwhile, various defendants and the plaintiff have
been filing notices of supplemental authority and letters arguing the impact of such supplemental
authority. (D.I. 154, 156, 157, 160, 161, 162, 166, 169, 172, 191, 192, 193, 194). Most, ifnot
The fourth amended complaint followed the SEC's complaint of June 20,2013. (D.I.
all of the supplemental authority concerns various "failure to state a claim" arguments, submitted
on behalf of defendants DTT, Bird, and Green. Other defendants- the Lins, Bright Elite,
Thousand Space- have asked for "a full opportunity" to respond the new complaint(s). (D.I.
159). Meanwhile, counsel have been permitted to withdraw from representation of some
defendants (CME and Cheng, see D.I. 184; Lam, see D.I. 152), with no replacement counsel in
sight. Thus, Plaintiffhas moved for a default judgment against CME. (D.I. 197). The Court is
not going to rule on the motion for a default judgment until it rules on the viability of the
It would not be very efficient to rule on the pending motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, since Plaintiff has proposed a second, third, and fourth amended complaint, and there
has been, understandably, at least one request to be allowed to address the amended complaints.
Thus, in light of the above, this
~y of August 2013, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Plaintiff is given leave to file its fourth amended complaint. It shall do so by 5
p.m. on August 27, 2013. Plaintiff will not be given leave to file any more amended complaints.
2. All pending motions to dismiss (D.I. 61, 64, 69, 72, 80, 86, 95) are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to any of the arguments contained therein. Defendants and the
Plaintiff shall agree to a new timetable to file motions, and complete briefing thereon, which
briefing should be complete by no more than nine weeks from the date of this order, and should
not exceed the page limits set in connection with the earlier briefing.
3. Once the briefing is complete pursuant to
of this Order, no party shall file any
supplemental authority other than by a one-page letter that provides the citation to the authority
and the page reference(s) to the brief(s) to which it is relevant, and no argument or other
explanation. There shall be no response to such a letter.
4. Any declarations or appendices previously filed before November 1, 2012, and relied
upon in the new briefing, shall be re-filed.
5. The Court will defer ruling on D.l. 197 until after resolution of the new motions to
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?