Holy crap lawsuit dismissed? Credit uninvited gue
Post# of 72440
Posted On: 06/08/2016 12:25:45 PM
Holy crap lawsuit dismissed? Credit uninvited guest.
The case has been dismissed. I'm sure KarinCA will be able to elaborate, but pacer was updated today with this info.
Quote:
OPINION AND ORDER re: 36 MOTION to Dismiss SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Cellceutix Corporation, Leo Ehrlich, Krishna Menon. For the reasons stated in this Opinion, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's SAC is GRANTED. Plaintiff has requested leave to replead, without presenting any concrete means of remedying the deficiencies identified in this Opinion. Because Plaintiff has previously been given leave to replead, and because the Court finds that any further repleading would be futile, Plaintiff's request is DENIED. See Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec., LLC, 797 F.3d 160, 190 (2d Cir. 2015) (identifying futility as a proper ground for denying leave to replead); see generally United States ex rel. Ladas v. Exelis, Inc., F.3d, No. 14-4155-cv, 2016 WL 3003674, at *9 (2d Cir. May 25, 2016). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and close this case. (As further set forth in this Opinion and Order.) (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/8/2016) (mro) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
Here's a link to document 49 with the judge's opinion. I haven't read this yet.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r2wixsx3428q2s8/CTI...l.pdf?dl=0
Report TOS
The case has been dismissed. I'm sure KarinCA will be able to elaborate, but pacer was updated today with this info.
Quote:
OPINION AND ORDER re: 36 MOTION to Dismiss SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Cellceutix Corporation, Leo Ehrlich, Krishna Menon. For the reasons stated in this Opinion, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's SAC is GRANTED. Plaintiff has requested leave to replead, without presenting any concrete means of remedying the deficiencies identified in this Opinion. Because Plaintiff has previously been given leave to replead, and because the Court finds that any further repleading would be futile, Plaintiff's request is DENIED. See Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec., LLC, 797 F.3d 160, 190 (2d Cir. 2015) (identifying futility as a proper ground for denying leave to replead); see generally United States ex rel. Ladas v. Exelis, Inc., F.3d, No. 14-4155-cv, 2016 WL 3003674, at *9 (2d Cir. May 25, 2016). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and close this case. (As further set forth in this Opinion and Order.) (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/8/2016) (mro) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
Here's a link to document 49 with the judge's opinion. I haven't read this yet.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r2wixsx3428q2s8/CTI...l.pdf?dl=0
Report TOS
(6)
(0)Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼