GOLDMAN et al v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC. et al
ORDER of MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION (ECF NO. 60) that. JUDITH AND KENNETH GOLDMAN'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY (ECF NO. 56) IS GRANTED; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC AND BARRY GUARIGLIA'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (ECF NO. 43) IS GRANTED. ACCORDINGLY, JUDITH AND KENNETH GOLDMAN'S REFILED MOTION TO VACATE (ECF NO. 42) AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF NO. 58) ARE BOTH DENIED; JUDITH AND KENNETH GOLDMAN'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 50) IS DENIED.1(footnote). SIGNED BY HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY ON 5/19/2015. 5/19/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES VIA ECF.(mo, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JUDITH GOLDMAN and
KENNETH B. GOLDMAN
MARKETS INC.; BARRY
GUARIGLIA; FINRA; and
AND NOW, this ____19th__ day of May 2015, it is ORDERED as follows:
Judith and Kenneth Goldman’s Motion for Leave to Provide Supplemental
Authority (ECF No. 56) is GRANTED.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Barry Guariglia’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Jurisdiction (ECF No. 43) is GRANTED. Accordingly, Judith and Kenneth
Goldman’s Refiled Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 42) and Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order (ECF No. 58) are both DENIED.
Judith and Kenneth Goldman’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 50) is DENIED.1
The Goldmans seek to amend their complaint to assert the same claims they unsuccessfully brought in
their arbitration before FINRA. In support of their motion to amend, they cite FINRA Rule 12206. See
Mot. for Leave to File Am. Compl. At 3-4, ECF No. 50. That rule, however, only applies when the
claims in the underlying arbitration are dismissed for being untimely. “Where six years have elapsed
from the occurrence or event giving rise to the claim,” and a defendant successfully moves to dismiss on
that ground, “the non-moving party may withdraw any remaining related claims without prejudice and
may pursue all of the claims in court.” FINRA Rule 12206, available at
http://finra.complinet.com/en/display/display_main.html?rbid=2403&element_id=4112. Defendants did
not claim in the underlying arbitration that the Goldmans’ claims were untimely, and the arbitration panel
s/Anita B. Brody
ANITA B. BRODY, J.
Copies VIA ECF on _________ to:
Copies MAILED on _______ to:
accordingly dismissed the Goldmans’ claims on the merits. See Mot. to Dismiss, for Expungement, and
for Atty’s Fees, ECF No. 51-3; Arbitration Award, ECF No. 42-2.
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?