WGH Communications, Inc. v. Penachio Malara LLP

Background

WGH Communications, Inc. sought permission to file a Second Amended Complaint asserting claims for legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty against Penachio Malara LLP, Anne Penachio, Bronson Law Offices, PC, and Bruce Bronson. The court had previously granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss WGH’s First Amended Complaint, while allowing WGH to file a motion seeking permission to amend again.

WGH filed that motion. Magistrate Judge Cave issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion be denied because the proposed amendment would be futile, meaning that the proposed pleading would not cure the defects identified in the earlier complaint. WGH objected to the recommendation. Certain defendants responded, and WGH filed a reply without permission. The court nevertheless considered the reply and found that it added nothing substantial.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed any specific objections to the recommendation independently, a process called de novo review. It found those objections unpersuasive. The court found no error in Magistrate Judge Cave’s Report and Recommendation and adopted it in its entirety.

The court also stated that WGH had not requested permission to file another amended pleading that addressed the identified defects and had not offered facts that could remedy them. The court noted that it had previously advised WGH about most of those defects and therefore declined to give WGH another opportunity to file a proposed amended pleading.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied WGH’s motion to file a Second Amended Complaint. The order also directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the First Amended Complaint and close the case. The order resolved Docket Entry No. 72.