Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-2318 (LEAD)
04-21-2015
IN RE CENTURYLINK, INC. SHAREHOLDER DERIVITIVE ACTION v. GLEN F. POST, III, ET AL.
(Consolidated Case No. 13-2983)
(Consolidated Case No. 14-0658)
(Consolidated Case No. 14-0659)
(Consolidated Case No. 14-1031)
(Consolidated Case No. 14-1032)
MAG. JUDGE JAMES D. KIRK
RULING
Pending before the Court is Defendants' "Motion to Dismiss First Amended Securities Class Action Complaint" [Doc. No. 54]. Defendants move the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims set forth in their First Amended Securities Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint") [Doc. No. 50].
On February 3, 2015, Magistrate Judge Kirk issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 66] in which he recommended that the Court grant the motion and dismiss Plaintiffs' claims in the Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs filed objections [Doc. No. 66]. Defendants filed a response [Doc. No. 68] to the objections.
After fully considering the record in this matter, including Plaintiffs' objections and Defendants' response thereto, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Kirk correctly stated and applied the law and hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. The Court issues this Ruling to address one issue raised in Plaintiffs' objections.
In their objections, Plaintiffs contend that, if the Court finds their Amended Complaint to be "inadequately pled," they should be permitted to file a third amended complaint. [Doc. No. 66, p. 21]. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that leave to amend pleadings "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). As Plaintiffs point out, Rule 15 "evinces a bias in favor of granting leave to amend." S. Constructors Group v. Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th Cir. 1993); see Goldstein v. MCI Worldcom, 340 F.3d 238, 254 (5th Cir. 2003).
However, in this case, Plaintiffs were already given leave to amend. This is a consolidated case in which Plaintiffs have brought a shareholder's derivitive action and a securities class action. The lead case, Civil Action No. 13-2318, and one of the member cases, Civil Action No. 13-2983, were originally brought as shareholder's derivitive actions, and that portion of the consolidated case has been stayed. Two of the other consolidated member actions, Civil Action Nos. 14-0658 and 14-0659, were brought in June, 2013, as securities class actions in other jurisdictions. After transfer to this Court, on May 20, 2014, Magistrate Judge Kirk lifted the stay and extended the briefing, specifically to permit Plaintiffs to file an amended securities class action complaint and to permit Defendants to file a motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 46]. Thus, the case has been pending since 2013, and Plaintiffs have already been granted leave to amend once. Further, though Plaintiffs contend that they should be given leave to amend a second time, they do not explain or identify what allegations they could add to support their claims. Accordingly, under these circumstances, Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend is DENIED.
Two other shareholder's derivitive actions have been transferred to this Court and consolidated with the lead case: Civil Action Nos. 14-1031 and 14-1032.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 21st day of April, 2015.
/s/_________
ROBERT G. JAMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE