RE:Major tactical change for Puda Case
KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge: For the following reasons, plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 282) and Trellus Management Company LLC's motion for an indicative ruling (ECF No. 288) are GRANTED. 1. PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT On February 17, 2014, plaintiffs responded to the Court's order to show cause as to why plaintiffs' amended complaint is not barred by principles of res judicata. (See ECF Nos. 291, 299.) The Court agrees with plaintiffs' reading ofL-Tec Elecs. Corp. v. Cougar Elec. Org., Inc., 198 F.3d 85, 86 (2d Cir. 1999). The Court's October 1, 2013 Opinion & Order granted summary judgment against plaintiff Rosenberger because he lacked standing to assert claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 12. (ECF No. 263 at 4, 19.) The dismissal of Macquarie in that opinion was thus a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and was not a decision on the merits. See St. Pierre v. Dyer, 208 F.3d 394,400 (2d Cir. 2000). Furthermore, Macquarie has not obtained a separate, final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). See L-Tec, 198 F.3d at 86. Finally, plaintiffs were unable to obtain the so-called "smoking gun" KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge: For the following reasons, plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 282) and Trellus Management Company LLC's motion for an indicative ruling (ECF No. 288) are GRANTED. 1. PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT On February 17, 2014, plaintiffs responded to the Court's order to show cause as to why plaintiffs' amended complaint is not barred by principles of res judicata. (See ECF Nos. 291, 299.) The Court agrees with plaintiffs' reading ofL-Tec Elecs. Corp. v. Cougar Elec. Org., Inc., 198 F.3d 85, 86 (2d Cir. 1999). The Court's October 1, 2013 Opinion & Order granted summary judgment against plaintiff Rosenberger because he lacked standing to assert claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 12. (ECF No. 263 at 4, 19.) The dismissal of Macquarie in that opinion was thus a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and was not a decision on the merits. See St. Pierre v. Dyer, 208 F.3d 394,400 (2d Cir. 2000). Furthermore, Macquarie has not obtained a separate, final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). See L-Tec, 198 F.3d at 86. Finally, plaintiffs were unable to obtain the so-called "smoking gun" KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge: For the following reasons, plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 282) and Trellus Management Company LLC's motion for an indicative ruling (ECF No. 288) are GRANTED. 1. PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT On February 17, 2014, plaintiffs responded to the Court's order to show cause as to why plaintiffs' amended complaint is not barred by principles of res judicata. (See ECF Nos. 291, 299.) The Court agrees with plaintiffs' reading ofL-Tec Elecs. Corp. v. Cougar Elec. Org., Inc., 198 F.3d 85, 86 (2d Cir. 1999). The Court's October 1, 2013 Opinion & Order granted summary judgment against plaintiff Rosenberger because he lacked standing to assert claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 12. (ECF No. 263 at 4, 19.) The dismissal of Macquarie in that opinion was thus a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and was not a decision on the merits. See St. Pierre v. Dyer, 208 F.3d 394,400 (2d Cir. 2000). Furthermore, Macquarie has not obtained a separate, final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). See L-Tec, 198 F.3d at 86.