AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges

IN RE HYDROXYCUT MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION DEBRA RUTHERFORD, DANA CRAWFORD, MICHAEL MAGGARD, TRAVIS D. HORTON, Plaintiffs, v. MUSCLETECH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., et al., Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

BARRY MOSKOWITZ, District Judge

On April 30, 2010, defendants Muscletech Research and Development, Inc., Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A., Inc., Iovate Health Sciences Research, Inc., Iovate Health Sciences International, Inc. Iovate HC 2005 Formulations Ltd., and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. ("Defendants") filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), or in the alternative Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). On that same date, defendant GNC Corporation filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The hearing on both motions was set for July 2, 2010. On June 18, 2010 (in 10cv673) and June 21, 2010 (in 09md2087), attorneys for plaintiffs Deborah Rutherford, Dana Crawford, Michael Maggard, and Travis D. Horton ("Plaintiffs") filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. On June 22, 2010, the Court ordered Defendants to file a response, if any, to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend. Pursuant to that order, Defendants filed a Response stating, "Defendants do not in principle oppose Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend and therefore do not have any objection to Plaintiffs filing an amended complaint at this time," but that Plaintiff's proposed amendments only cured some and not all of the pleading defects.

[09md2087 — Docket Entry 189]

[09md2087 — Docket Entry 190]

[09md2087 — Docket Entry 261]; [10cv673 — Docket Entry 24]

[09md2087 — Docket Entry 266]

[09md2087 — Docket Entry 274]

Upon review of the papers submitted by the parties, the Court hereby orders as follows:

1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED.

2. The scope of the leave granted is not limited to the amendments proposed by Plaintiffs, but shall be broad enough to permit Plaintiffs to make any and all amendments they deem appropriate or necessary to cure any defects alleged by Defendants.

3. The two pending Motions to Dismiss [09md2087 — Docket Entries 189 and 190] are DENIED as moot since the original complaint will no longer be the operative complaint once Plaintiffs file an amended complaint in this case.

4. Defendants' request for a stay of the briefing schedule relating to their motions to dismiss is GRANTED.

5. Plaintiffs shall file their amended complaint on or before July 23, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN RE HYDROXYCUT MARKETING SALES PRACTICES LITIG
(Jul 1, 2010)