WU v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC., 14 C 5392 (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20150730942
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 29, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 29, 2015
Summary: SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR , Senior District Judge . After this Court's memorandum opinion and order ("Opinion") dispatching both of these lawsuits with prejudice had been dictated, transcribed and edited to final form for entry and delivery to the litigants (all of which was completed by July 28), this Court caused the Opinion to be dated July 29 to jibe with that previously scheduled court date for the actions. Then after that work had been completed, thi
Summary: SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR , Senior District Judge . After this Court's memorandum opinion and order ("Opinion") dispatching both of these lawsuits with prejudice had been dictated, transcribed and edited to final form for entry and delivery to the litigants (all of which was completed by July 28), this Court caused the Opinion to be dated July 29 to jibe with that previously scheduled court date for the actions. Then after that work had been completed, this..
More
SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.
After this Court's memorandum opinion and order ("Opinion") dispatching both of these lawsuits with prejudice had been dictated, transcribed and edited to final form for entry and delivery to the litigants (all of which was completed by July 28), this Court caused the Opinion to be dated July 29 to jibe with that previously scheduled court date for the actions. Then after that work had been completed, this Court received another opposition to the motions of Michael and Christine Wu that the Opinion had dealt with — this time from defendants Citigroup, Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., John P. Havens and Xiao-mei (Linda) Wang (collectively the "Citigroup Defendants") — and that filing has occasioned this supplement to the Opinion.
In principal part the Citigroup Defendants' opposition adopts and echoes the Prudential opposition that this Court signed onto in the Opinion as fully persuasive. And that being so, the Citigroup Defendants' merits-related discussion, like the corresponding discussion in Prudential's opposition, need not be addressed here.
In sum, what this Court said and held in the Opinion remains intact. These actions are indeed dismissed with prejudice.
Source: Leagle
