In re: Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. Securities Litigation
- Naomi Buchwald
- 1:17-cv-08983
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Omega Healthcare Securities Litigation: Judge Buchwald denied as moot plaintiffs’ two motions after they obtained permission to amend.
The plaintiffs and other parties in the Omega Healthcare Investors securities litigation; the order addressed plaintiffs’ pending motions and their ability to file a second amended complaint.
What happened
In re Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. Securities Litigation followed an appeals court decision that reversed this court’s earlier decision and sent the case back.
Plaintiffs asked the court to change their pending request for relief from the judgment into a request for permission to amend their complaint. The parties later agreed, and the court ordered, that plaintiffs could file a second amended complaint by August 28, 2020.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald denied as moot both plaintiffs’ request for relief from the judgment and their request to convert it into a motion to amend. She also directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion.
The detailed version
- In re: Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. Securities Litigation · No. 1:17-cv-08983
- Naomi Buchwald
- Aug. 26, 2020
Background
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had reversed this court’s earlier decision in a prior related proceeding and remanded the case. Plaintiffs then asked the district court to convert their pending motion for relief from the judgment—a request to change or undo the judgment—into a motion for leave to amend the complaint, meaning a request for permission to file a revised complaint.
The parties stipulated that plaintiffs could file a second amended complaint by August 28, 2020, and the district court approved that agreement.
Ruling
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ordered that plaintiffs’ motion for relief from the judgment and their request to convert that motion into a motion for leave to amend the complaint were both denied as moot. The court also directed the clerk to terminate the motion pending at ECF No. 65. This order did not decide the underlying securities claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.