Marcu v. Cheetah Mobile Inc. et al
| New York Southern District Court | |
| Judge: | Jesse M Furman |
| Case #: | 1:18-cv-11184 |
| Nature of Suit | 850 Other Statutes - Securities/Commodities/Exchange |
| Cause | 15:78j(b)ss Stockholder Suit |
| Case Filed: | Nov 30, 2018 |
| Terminated: | Jul 16, 2020 |
| Last checked: Wednesday May 29, 2019 4:43 AM EDT |
|
Defendant
Cheetah Mobile Inc.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Sheng Fu
|
|
|
Defendant
Vincent Zhenyu Jiang
|
|
|
Defendant
Yuk Keung Ng
|
|
|
Defendant
Ka Wai Andy Yeung
|
|
|
Lead Plaintiff
Xuefeng Zhang
|
Represented By
|
|
Movant
Chunli Ma
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Adrian Marcu
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Gregory Timourian
|
Represented By
|
| Docket last updated: 04/26/2024 11:59 PM EDT |
| Thursday, July 16, 2020 | ||
| 68 | 68
order
Judgment - Clerk
Thu 07/16 3:28 PM
CLERK'S JUDGMENT re:67 Memorandum & Opinion in favor of Cheetah Mobile Inc., Ka Wai Andy Yeung, Sheng Fu, Vincent Zhenyu Jiang, Yuk Keung Ng against Adrian Marcu, Gregory Timourian, Xuefeng Zhang. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 16, 2020, Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' Complaint is dismissed in its entirety. The only remaining question is whether Plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend. Although leave to amend a complaint should be freely given "when justice so requires," Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), and leave is often granted when the complaint is dismissed under Rule 9(b), see ATSI Commc'ns, 493 F.3d at 108, it is ultimately "within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to amend," McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir. 2007). Here, Plaintiffs conspicuously do not request leave to amend, and the Court has declined to grant them leave to amend sua sponte. First, a district court may deny leave to amend where amendment would be futile. See Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec., LLC, 797 F.3d 160, 190 (2d Cir. 2015). In light of the Courts reasoning regarding falsity, there is nothing to suggest that, if the Court were to grant leave to amend, Plaintiffs would be able to state a valid claim. See, e.g., Ruffolo v. Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d 129, 131 (2d Cir. 1993) (Where it appears that granting leave to amend is unlikely to be productive... it is not an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.). Second, Plaintiffs were previously granted leave to amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies raised in the present motions to dismiss and expressly warned that they would not be given any further opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss. ECF Nos. 38, 53. Plaintiffs availed themselves of that opportunity to amend, see ECF No. 56, and need not be given yet another opportunity, see, e.g., Transeo S.A.R.L. v. Bessemer Venture Partners VI L.P., 936 F. Supp. 2d 376, 415 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (Plaintiffs failure to fix deficiencies in its previous pleadings is alone sufficient ground to deny leave to amend sua sponte. (citing cases)). Finally, as noted, Plaintiffs have not requested permission to file a [Third] Amended Complaint or given any indication that [they are] in possession of facts that would cure the problems identified above. Clark v. Kitt, No. 12-CV-8061 (CS), 2014 WL 4054284, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2014); accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 7/16/2020) (km) |
|
|
Att: 1
Right to Appeal
|
||
| 67 | 67
19
pgs
order
Memorandum & Opinion
Thu 07/16 2:58 PM
OPINION AND ORDER re:51 MOTION to Dismiss The Amended Class Action Complaint . filed by Vincent Zhenyu Jiang, Sheng Fu, Ka Wai Andy Yeung, Yuk Keung Ng,35 MOTION to Dismiss The Amended Class Action Complaint . filed by Cheetah Mobile Inc. Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' Complaint is dismissed in its entirety. The only remaining question is whether Plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend. Although leave to amend a complaint should be freely given "when justice so requires," Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), and leave is often granted when the complaint is dismissed under Rule 9(b), see ATSI Commc'ns, 493 F.3d at 108, it is ultimately "within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to amend," McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir. 2007). Here, Plaintiffs conspicuously do not request leave to amend, and the Court declines to grant them leave to amend sua sponte as further set forth in this Opinion. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 35 and 51 and to close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 7/16/20) (yv) |
|