Legal Opinion
Morales v. New Valley Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided June 27, 1997No. 95 Civ. 1246 (CSH)PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HAIGHT, Senior District Judge.
This matter is currently before the Court for consideration of plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint to add a new party defendant, Kenneth S. Grossman, and a new claim for relief under section 16(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78p(b), applicable to both Grossman and the existing defendants. Defendants Goldsmith and Freund oppose the motion, arguing that plaintiffs proposed amendment fails to state a claim under § 16(b), or in the alternative, is time-barred. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs motion is…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Papasan v. AllainSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Morales v. FreundCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- Morales v. New Valley Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1998
- Mercer v. GuptaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2013
- Mercer v. GuptaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 90,406 Richard Morales, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Harry I. Freund & Jay S. Goldsmith, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, New Valley Corporation, Defendant-Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999