Arcesium LLC v. Advent Software, Inc. et al

Filing 110

CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 109 Memorandum & Opinion. in favor of Advent Software, Inc., SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. against Arcesium LLC. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated March 31, 2021, Defendants motion to dismiss [ECF No. 78] is GRANTED on the ground that Plaintiff has not established antitrust standing in this case. Specifically, because Plaintiff's claims largely rise out of its contract with Defendants, and Defendants' refusal to renew the contract, Plaintiff has failed to allege an antitrust injury. Plaintiff also has not established that it is an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws sufficient to assert the claims alleged in the Complaint. In the absence of federal antitrust claims, the Court will not assert supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Because antitrust standing is a fact-intensive question, Plaintiff may be able to replead its complaint to remed y the deficiencies identified herein. At this stage the Court cannot ascertain whether such amendment necessarily would be futile. To the extent Plaintiff intends to move for leave to file an Amended Complaint, the motion (together with a blacklined copy of the proposed amended complaint) should be filed within thirty days of this Opinion and Order; accordingly, this case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 3/31/2021) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal) (dt)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------X ARCESIUM, LLC, Plaintiff, -against- 20 CIVIL 4389 (MKV) JUDGMENT ADVENT SOFTWARE, INC., and SS&C TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, INC. Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------X It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated March 31, 2021, Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 78] is GRANTED on the ground that Plaintiff has not established antitrust standing in this case. Specifically, because Plaintiff’s claims largely rise out of its contract with Defendants, and Defendants’ refusal to renew the contract, Plaintiff has failed to allege an antitrust injury. Plaintiff also has not established that it is an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws sufficient to assert the claims alleged in the Complaint. In the absence of federal antitrust claims, the Court will not assert supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Because antitrust standing is a fact-intensive question, Plaintiff may be able to replead its complaint to remedy the deficiencies identified herein. At this stage the Court cannot ascertain whether such amendment necessarily would be futile. To the extent Plaintiff intends to move for leave to file an Amended Complaint, the motion (together with a blacklined copy of the proposed amended complaint) should be filed within thirty days of this Opinion and Order; accordingly, this case is closed. Dated: New York, New York March 31, 2021 RUBY J. KRAJICK _________________________ Clerk of Court BY: _________________________ Deputy Clerk

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?