DM Manager LLC v. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:23-cv-00617
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In DM Manager v. Fidelity, Judge Ramos ruled the appeal was premature because amendment remained possible and directed plaintiffs to clarify whether they would amend.
The plaintiffs were required to clarify whether they would amend the intentional fraud claim. That choice would determine whether the Court issued a final judgment and closed the case or kept the amendment deadline in place while treating the appeal as premature.
What happened
In DM Manager LLC v. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., the plaintiffs appealed after the court’s March 29 decision dismissed their claims but allowed them to amend an intentional fraud claim. The court had extended the amendment deadline to May 20, 2024.
The plaintiffs said they were appealing a final judgment that dismissed the complaint and closed the case. The court explained that its March 29 decision was not final because the case remained open and the plaintiffs still had permission to amend one claim.
Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the plaintiffs to tell the court whether they were giving up their right to amend the intentional fraud claim. If they did, the court said it would issue a final judgment and close the case; if they did not, the appeal would remain premature and the May 20 amendment deadline would continue.
The detailed version
- DM Manager LLC v. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00617
- Edgardo Ramos
- May 1, 2024
Background
In a March 29, 2024 opinion, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. The Court dismissed the claims with prejudice except for the intentional fraud claim and allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint addressing that claim. After the plaintiffs requested more time, the Court extended the amendment deadline to May 20, 2024.
On April 29, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. They described the appeal as being from a final judgment entered on March 29 that dismissed the Complaint and closed the case.
Court’s analysis
Ordinarily, filing a notice of appeal removes the district court’s authority over matters involved in the appeal. But that rule does not apply when the appeal is untimely, plainly defective, or taken from an order that cannot yet be appealed.
The Court held that its March 29 opinion was not a final, appealable judgment. A dismissal without prejudice can be final when it closes the case and does not allow amendment. Here, however, the case was not closed because the Court allowed the plaintiffs to amend the intentional fraud claim and later extended the deadline. A dismissal that allows amendment is not a final order for appeal purposes.
Order
The Court directed the plaintiffs to advise whether they were disclaiming any intent to file an amended complaint concerning the intentional fraud claim. If they disclaimed any intent to amend, the Court stated that it would issue a final judgment and close the case. If they did not, the Court stated that the appeal was premature and that the May 20 deadline to amend would remain in effect.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.