Braman et al v. The CME Group, Inc. et al
Filing
87
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable John Robert Blakey on 5/26/2015. Mailed notice(gel, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM C. BRAMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CME GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 14 C 2646
Judge John Robert Blakey
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The case is before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a Third
Amended and Supplemental Complaint [80]. Plaintiffs argue that the amendment
allows them to add “new, material facts which provide further factual support for
their existing claims and allegations of wrongful behavior by Defendants,” and “does
not contain any new causes of action.” Motion [80], ¶¶1, 4. They argue that the
amendment will cause no material delay or undue prejudice to Defendants. Id., ¶4.
The defendants oppose the motion.
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that leave to
amend a pleading “shall be freely given when justice so requires.”
Leave may
appropriately be denied, however, where there is “undue delay, bad faith, dilatory
motive, prejudice, or futility.” E.g., Guise v. BMW Mortgage, LLC, 377 F.3d 795,
801 (7th Cir. 2004). Initially, the proposed amended complaint does allege new
claims: it adds a claim for manipulation and/or false reporting in violation of the
CEA, 7 U.S.C. §§9(1)(A) and 6b; and it adds a claim for violation of §25(a) of the
CEA. It also alters the antitrust claims and expands the class period by more than
a year.
Additionally, the proposed amendment would cause undue delay and
prejudice defendants.
On September 12, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the motion and defendants filed a reply. The motion
was fully briefed as of December 10, 2014. At least some of the “important facts and
information from news reports and other sources” upon which the current
amendment is purportedly based were (or could have been) known during the time
when the motion to dismiss was being briefed. Yet plaintiffs elected to oppose the
motion to dismiss, rather than seeking amendment at that time. As a practical
matter, plaintiffs’ decision to wait to seek amendment forced the defendants to
incur significant costs briefing a motion that will be made moot by the amendment
plaintiffs now seek. Defendants spent time and money preparing and filing a 29page reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss, which would not have been
necessary if plaintiffs had sought to amend their complaint then.
Plaintiffs
compounded the delay by waiting almost five months before seeking leave to
amend.
Plaintiffs indicated in February 2015 that they planned to seek
amendment. When they still had not filed a motion two months later, the Court set
a firm deadline for them to do so. Having now seen the bases for the motion, the
Court finds that amendment under the circumstances is not appropriate.
Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a Third Amended and Supplemental
Complaint [80] is denied. The May 28, 2015 Notice of Motion date is stricken, as is
2
the status hearing set for that day; the parties need not appear. The Court will rule
on the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint by mail.
Date: May 26, 2015
ENTERED:
____________________________________
John Robert Blakey
United States District Judge
3
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?