Newman, et al v. First Montauk Financial Corp., et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying 29 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge James C. Dever, III on 5/27/2009. Copies served. (Edwards, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
No.7:08-CV-116-D

JEANETTE E. NEWMAN, and NORMA E. REGISTER,

) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v.
) )
FIRST MONTAUK FINANCIAL CORP.,
)
FIRST MONTAUK SECURITIES CORP., ) KENNETHR. BOLTON, ) ) VICTOR K. KURYLAK, and ) CELESTE M. LEONARD, ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Plaintiffs Jeanette E. Newman and Norma E. Register filed a complaint against defendants First Montauk: Financial Corporation, First Montauk: Securities Corporation, Kenneth R. Bolton, Victor K. Kurylak, and Celeste M. Leonard [D.E. 1]. On September 23,2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [D.E. 16]. On October 27, 2008, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint [D.E. 22] thereby rendering defendants' motion to dismiss moot. Defendants thereafter withdrew their motion to dismiss [D.E. 25]. On November 26,2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint [D.E. 29]. On December 15,2008, plaintiffs responded in opposition [D.E. 32]. On January 9,2009, defendants replied [D.E. 37]. The court has considered defendants' motion to dismiss under the governing standard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (per curiam); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 560-64 (2007); Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298,302 (4th Cir. 2008). The court also has considered the parties' arguments about Rule 9(b) ofthe Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

Cf.,~, United States ex reI.

Wilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root. Inc., 525 FJd 370,

379 (4th Cir. 2008); Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 FJd 776, 783-84 (4th Cir. 1999); Higgins v. Spence & Spence. P.A., No. 5:07-CV-33-D, 2008 WL 506187, at *4 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 2 1 , 2 0 0 8 ) (unpublished). In light of the governing standard, defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint [D.E. 29] is DENIED. SO ORDERED. This 1:1- day of May 2009.

~...DEVER III hv~ JAM S C.
United States District Judge

2