Pearlstein v. Blackberry Limited et al

Filing 81

OPINION re: #68 MOTION to Amend/Correct #42 Amended Complaint, filed by Todd Cox & Mary Dinzik: Before this court is a motion to amend, originally sought as part of plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of this court's March 13, 2015 opinion. ECF Nos. 54, 56. The court reconsiders plaintiff's motion to amend pursuant to the Second Circuit's August 24, 2016 mandate, which vacated this court's denial of plaintiff's request to amend his complaint. ECF No. 65. The court grants plaintiff leave to amend as to his Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim because the claim was not filed with undue delay and is not futile under a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) analysis. The court denies plaintiff leave to amend with respect to his SEC Item 303 claim because amendment would be futile. For the reasons given above, the court concludes that plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint with respect to the SEC Item 303 claim is denied, but that the motion to amend the complaint with respect to plaintiff's Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim is granted. This Opinion resolves Docket Number 68. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 9/13/2017) (jwh)