CP Stone Fort Holdings, LLC v. Doe(s)

Northern District of Illinois, ilnd-1:2016-cv-04991

ORDER signed by the Honorable Robert Gettleman on 5/31/2017: On plaintiff's motion for reconsideration {{44}}, plaintiff is given leave to file an amended complaint by 6/22/2017. Status hearing date of 6/14/2017 is reset to 7/6/2017 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

Case: 1:16-cv-04991 Document #: 49 Filed: 05/31/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:363 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION CP STONE FORT HOLDINGS, LLC,)) Plaintiff,) Case No. 16 C 4991 v.)) Judge Robert W. Gettleman JOHN DOE(S),)) Defendant.) ORDER Plaintiff CP Stone Fort Holdings, LLC brought a one count amended complaint against certain John Doe defendants alleging that those defendants engaged in a scheme to manipulate the United States Treasury Markets in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and Rules 10b-5(a) and 10b-5(c) promulgated thereunder. Defendant John Doe #1 moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that the amended complaint failed to state a claim because it failed to allege: (1) manipulative acts; (2) facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter; (3) reliance; and (4) loss causation. On March 22, 2017, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting the motion to dismiss, dismissing the action, and entering judgment for defendant, concluding that plaintiff had sufficiently pled manipulative acts, scienter, and reliance, but had failed to plead loss causation. Plaintiff has now moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to alter or amend that judgment, arguing that the court misapprehended the controlling law when it applied the Supreme Court's decision in Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 342-43 (2005), rather than the analysis from a district court decision that predated Dura. See In re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litg., 297 F.Supp.2d 668, 674 (S.D. N.Y. 2003). Case: 1:16-cv-04991 Document #: 49 Filed: 05/31/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:364 Plaintiff's argument for application of the In re Initial Public Offering "standard" raises nothing new or different from its response to the initial motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court's rejection of plaintiff's argument is fully explained in its memorandum opinion and order. As defendant notes, Rule 59(e) is not designed to "rehash previously rejected arguments." Vesely v. Armslist, LLC, 762 F.3d 661, 666 (7th Cir. 2014). Consequently, the court rejects plaintiff's argument that the court misapprehended the controlling law. Plaintiff's better argument is that its failure to plead loss causation under Dura is curable. Plaintiff's motion contains sample allegations that the court concludes are sufficient to allege loss causation. See Ong v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 459 F.Supp.2d 729, 749 (N.D. Ill. 2006) ("Notice pleading applies to allegations of loss causation, and plaintiffs are not required to allege the absence of other factors that might have affected the price of securities."). Consequently, the court grants plaintiff leave to file on or before June 22, 2017, a second amended complaint, limited solely to adding allegations pleading loss causation. The status report previously set for June 14, 2017, is continued to July 6, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. ENTER: May 31, 2017 __________________________________________ Robert W. Gettleman United States District Judge 2