Gainor v. Sidley, Austin, Brow

Filing 40

AMENDED COMPLAINT against Arthur Andersen, LLP, Mark C. Klopfenstein, Michael S. Marx, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., P. Anthony Nissley, R. J. Ruble, Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, LLP, filed by Mark J. Gainor.(bs)

Gainor v. Sidley, Austin, Brow

Doc. 40

Case 1:06-cv-21748-JEM

Document 40

Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2007

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Miami Division Case Number: 06-21748-CIV-MARTINEZ-BANDSTRA MARK J. GAINOR, Plaintiff, vs. SIDLEY, AUSTIN, BROWN & WOOD, LLP, Defendant. _____________________________________/ ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Certification of Pre-Filing Conference (D.E. No. 37), as well as a sua sponte review of the record. The Court has carefully considered the motion and is otherwise duly advised. Plaintiff's Motion explains that after engaging in significant discovery, he now has "a far clearer picture of what transpired than he did when this case was filed." (D.E. No. 37 at 2). Indeed, Plaintiff's Motion is accompanied by a proposed Amended Complaint (D.E. No. 37) that is forty-two pages long. This Court finds that Plaintiff has stated good cause for leave to amend to be granted. Furthermore, in light of the detailed allegations contained in Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint, this Court finds that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, which was filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6), should be denied without prejudice. Defendant may seek leave to re-file its Motion to Dismiss, if appropriate. It is hereby: ORDERED and ADJUDGED that 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Certification of Pre-Filing

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:06-cv-21748-JEM

Document 40

Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2007

Page 2 of 2

Conference (D.E. No. 37) is GRANTED. 2. The proposed Amended Complaint (D.E. No. 37-2) is deemed filed as of the date that this Order is entered on the docket. 3. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (D.E. No. 4) and Motion for Oral Argument (D.E. No. 5) are DENIED without prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, March 7, 2007.

____________________________________ JOSE E. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies provided to: Magistrate Judge Bandstra All Counsel of Record

-2-