Eagle Equity Funds, LLC v. Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras S/A - Eletrobras
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-09344
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Eagle Equity Funds v. Eletrobras, Judge Furman granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint entirely without leave to amend.
The plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed in its entirety, and they were not given leave to amend. The defendants prevailed, and the case was closed.
What happened
Eagle Equity Funds, LLC, AHG Vermogensverwaltungsgesellschaft mb, and AAE Management for Energy Equipment LLC sued Centrais Elétricas Brasileiras S/A – Eletrobras, Wilson Pinto Ferreira, Jr., and Elvira Barachuy Cavalcanti Presta.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The court denied leave to amend, stating that amendment would likely be futile, that the plaintiffs had not identified facts that would cure the problems, and that they had already received an opportunity and warning concerning amendment. The case was closed.
Judge Furman is identified as the judge in Eagle Equity Funds v. Eletrobras, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants on February 3, 2021.
The detailed version
- Eagle Equity Funds, LLC v. Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras S/A - Eletrobras · No. 1:19-cv-09344
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 3, 2021
Ruling
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s Opinion and Order dated February 3, 2021, the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. The plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed in its entirety.
The court also denied the plaintiffs leave to amend. It gave three reasons: amendment would almost certainly be futile based on the grounds for the decision; the plaintiffs did not indicate that they possessed facts that would cure the identified problems; and the court had previously allowed an amended complaint while expressly warning that the plaintiffs would not receive another opportunity to address the issues raised in the motion to dismiss.
Disposition
Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants, and the case was closed. The judgment itself does not describe the underlying grounds for dismissal beyond referring to the separate Opinion and Order dated February 3, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.