Hourani v. Mirtchev
2012 WL 1228355
D.D.C.2012Background
- Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint against Defendants.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint or, in the alternative, stay the action pending arbitration and to strike portions of the complaint.
- Defendants also moved for leave to file a 2012 expert report.
- The court granted leave to amend, denied Defendants' motions to dismiss and to strike without prejudice, and held in abeyance Defendants' motion to file the 2012 expert report.
- Overall, the amendments were allowed while several pending defenses were left unresolved pending further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should grant leave to amend the complaint | Plaintiffs argue amendment is proper and narrows focus to relevant facts | Defendants argue amendment is in bad faith and futile | Granted |
| Whether the amendment shows bad faith | Amendment narrows scope without fault | Amendment contradicts original pleading and shows bad faith | No improper bad faith found |
| Whether the proposed amended counts are futile | Counts I–III plausibly state RICO and related conspiracy claims | Counts fail to state a viable claim and should be denied | Not futile at this stage |
| Effect on the 2012 expert report motion | Report is relevant to several motions | Report primarily relates to sanctions | Held in abeyance pending sanctions issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (district court abuse of discretion standard for amendments noted)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend freely given unless futility, bad faith, or undue delay)
- In re InterBank Funding Corp. Sec. Litig., 629 F.3d 213 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (discretion to deny amendment on futility grounds)
- Harrison v. Rubin, 174 F.3d 249 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (plaintiff not bound by original theory of relief)
- Western Assocs. Ltd. Pshp. v. Market Square Assocs., 235 F.3d 629 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (elements of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and related conspiracy facts)
- Pyramid Sec. Ltd. v. IB Resolution, Inc., 924 F.2d 1114 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (outlines racketeering elements and pleading standards)