Filed: Dec. 05, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 05, 2016
Summary: ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE OTIS D. WRIGHT, II , District Judge . On October 31, 2016, the Court granted Defendant Husain's motion to dismiss finding that Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission had not alleged its causes of action with sufficient particularity. (ECF No. 31.) On November 22, 2016, the Commission filed its first amended complaint. (ECF No. 33.) The parties have requested that the Court approve an extension to the typical fourteen-day period for filing motions to di
Summary: ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE OTIS D. WRIGHT, II , District Judge . On October 31, 2016, the Court granted Defendant Husain's motion to dismiss finding that Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission had not alleged its causes of action with sufficient particularity. (ECF No. 31.) On November 22, 2016, the Commission filed its first amended complaint. (ECF No. 33.) The parties have requested that the Court approve an extension to the typical fourteen-day period for filing motions to dis..
More
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge.
On October 31, 2016, the Court granted Defendant Husain's motion to dismiss finding that Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission had not alleged its causes of action with sufficient particularity. (ECF No. 31.) On November 22, 2016, the Commission filed its first amended complaint. (ECF No. 33.)
The parties have requested that the Court approve an extension to the typical fourteen-day period for filing motions to dismiss after the filing of an amended complaint. (ECF No. 34.) Due to the complexity of this case, the Court will approve the parties' request for an extension. All motions to dismiss shall now be filed on or before December 23, 2016. All opposition shall be filed on or before January 20, 2017. All replies shall be filed on or before January 30, 2017. As the Court anticipates multiple motions to dismiss, hearings on the motions to dismiss shall be placed on calendar for February 27, 2017. Any motions to dismiss filed should explicitly identify whether, and why, they believe Janus Capital Grp., Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135, 137 (2011) applies in this enforcement action. Provided that Janus does apply, the parties should address its application, if any, to each of the claims for which they are seeking dismissal and its effect on prior applicable case law, if any, for that respective claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
