DENISE COTE, District Judge
On September 5, 2003, defendants Citigroup, Inc, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. f/k/a Salomon Smith Barney Inc., and Jack Grubman ("SSB Defendants") moved to dismiss Counts IV, V, IX, X and XI of the First Amended Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint") in the above-captioned Securities Litigation. During a conference held on September 12, 2003, the Court informed the parties that opposition briefing would be requested if needed. No opposition briefing has been required or requested.
The SSB Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint in order to preserve their rights with respect to the Amended Complaint, and rely entirely on arguments set forth in their briefs and the Underwriter Defendants' briefs on the motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. The prior motion to dismiss was denied by Opinion and Order dated May 19, 2003. See In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Liticr., No. 02 Civ. 3288 (DLC), 2003 WL 21219049 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2003) ("May 19 Opinion").
The SSB Defendants move in the alternative to strike the Amended Complaint because it adds allegations in addition to those for which the May 19 Opinion granted leave to amend. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that the court may strike "any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Although allegations in the Amended Complaint add further detail to the claims pleaded in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint against the SSB Defendants, the Amended Complaint pleads no new claims against them. The SSB Defendants do not argue that the allegations are redundant or immaterial, let alone impertinent or scandalous. Indeed, the SSB Defendants do not even identify any specific additional allegations to which they object. The SSB Defendants offer no substantive basis for their motion to strike and provide no support for their contention that the amended allegations will disrupt the orderly progress of this litigation. The Court is unpersuaded any such disruption has or will occur.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party may amend its pleading by leave of the court and that "leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); see also Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Although the SSB Defendants have not specified any objectionable allegations, a review of the Amended Complaint suggests that the allegations are neither redundant nor immaterial, and further support the claims raised in the previous complaint. Given the limited grounds for which a motion to strike should be granted, and the broad standard governing leave to amend, the addition of some allegations for which leave was not previously granted is not a sufficient basis to strike the Amended Complaint as a whole. For these reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that the SSB Defendants' motion to strike the Amended Complaint is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the SSB Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied for the reasons set forth in the May 19 Opinion.
SO ORDERED.