Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous]Sloane's Reply to her MTD Wayfarer's counterclaims was filed late yesterday: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.60.0.pdf Again focusing on lack of evidence provided to support their claims, suggesting a push to dismiss with prejudice: "Leave to amend 'should generally be denied in instances of futility, undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or undue prejudice.' United States ex rel. Ladas v. Exelis, Inc., 824 F.3d 16, 28 (2d Cir. 2016). Wayfarer has already amended its counterclaims once, after Plaintiffs moved to dismiss them. Any amendment by Wayfarer, which has long had knowledge of the brunt of the facts underlying its claims—for more than nine months—and which has already failed to cure the pleading defects in their First Amended Counterclaims, would be futile and is unwarranted. See Kim v. Kimm, 884 F.3d 98, 105 (2d Cir. 2018); Thompson v. Mun. Credit Union, 2022 WL 2717303, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2022) (Liman, J.) ('When the plain language of a contract unambiguously forecloses a plaintiff's claim, a district court may determine that re-pleading would be futile.')." And as always, at least one of the footnotes is on fire: "The closest the Amended Counterclaims come is the vague assertion that Sloane told Nathan that she could expect to be sued 'based on what [Sloane] had already seen and what Jones had told her'—without ever identifying what, exactly, Sloane purportedly 'had [] seen' or 'heard,' let alone alleging she 'had [] seen' or 'heard' any confidential information about Wayfarer. Dkt. 51 ¶ 54. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics