Litovich v. Bank of America Corporation
Isabel Litovich; Michael V. Cottrell; Frank Hirsch; Holdcraft Marital Trust; and United Food and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Bank of America Corporation; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.; Bank of America Securities, Inc.; Barclays Capital Inc.; Citigroup Inc.; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co., LLC; JPMorgan Chase & Co.; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Morgan Stanley; Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-03154
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Litovich v. Bank of America, Judge Caproni granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, denied further amendment, and closed the case.
The named plaintiffs and defendants in the action; the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted, further amendment was denied, and the case was closed.
What happened
Isabel Litovich, Michael V. Cottrell, Frank Hirsch, Holdcraft Marital Trust, and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund sued Bank of America Corporation and other defendants. The judgment refers to the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint and allegations of a conspiracy.
The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. The court granted that motion. The judgment states that the plaintiffs had already amended their complaint twice and continued to assert allegations without enough facts for the court to infer a conspiracy.
Judge Valerie Caproni’s September 2, 2025 judgment denied the plaintiffs leave to amend again because further amendment would be futile. The case was then closed.
The detailed version
- Litovich v. Bank of America Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-03154
- Valerie Caproni
- Sept. 2, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs brought this action against the listed defendants and filed a second amended complaint. The judgment states that the plaintiffs were asserting allegations from which they sought the court’s inference of a conspiracy.
Ruling
The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. For the reasons stated in the court’s separate Opinion and Order dated September 2, 2025, the judgment states that the motion to dismiss was granted. The judgment further states that the plaintiffs had already amended their complaint twice and still had not pleaded facts sufficient for the court to infer a conspiracy.
Leave to Amend and Case Status
The court relied on the principle that amendment may be denied when it would be futile. Judge Valerie Caproni denied leave to amend again, and the case was closed. The judgment does not state that the motion or leave to amend was granted or denied with a particular prejudice designation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.