Touchstone Strategic Trust v. General Electric Company
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-01876
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Touchstone Strategic Trust v. General Electric Company, Judge Furman granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied further amendment, and closed the case.
The plaintiffs, Touchstone Strategic Trust et al., and the defendants, General Electric Company et al.; the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted, and the plaintiffs were not given another opportunity to amend.
What happened
In Touchstone Strategic Trust v. General Electric Company, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The judgment says the motion was granted for the reasons given in an earlier opinion and order dated September 28, 2022.
The plaintiffs did not ask for another chance to revise their complaint. The court noted that they had already received two opportunities to amend and had been warned that they would not receive another opportunity to address problems raised by the motion to dismiss.
Judge Jesse Furman declined to give the plaintiffs another opportunity to amend and stated that the case was closed. The judgment does not add a separate statement about the underlying claims beyond adopting the reasons in the September 28 opinion and order.
The detailed version
- Touchstone Strategic Trust v. General Electric Company · No. 1:19-cv-01876
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 30, 2022
Background
The judgment concerns a motion by the defendants to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. It states that the motion was granted for the reasons explained in the Court’s Opinion and Order dated September 28, 2022. That earlier opinion is not included in the provided text, so the specific claims and the court’s substantive reasoning cannot be summarized here.
Amendment Request
The court considered whether to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint again. The plaintiffs did not request leave to amend. The court noted that the plaintiffs had already been given two opportunities to amend: once in response to an earlier court decision and once in response to the defendants’ initial motion to dismiss. When allowing the second amendment, the court had expressly warned that the plaintiffs would not receive another opportunity to amend to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss.
The court also stated that the plaintiffs did not identify facts that would cure the problems with their claims. For those reasons, the court declined to give them another opportunity to amend on its own initiative.
Disposition
Judge Jesse Furman’s judgment states that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. The court declined to grant the plaintiffs leave to amend and stated that the case was closed. The provided judgment does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.