Frankel v. McDonough

Second Circuit

Frankel v. McDonough

471 F. App'x 67

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 12, 2012

Docket11-4999-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 471 F. App'x 67 (Frankel v. McDonough) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frankel v. McDonough, 471 F. App'x 67 (2d Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Sofía Frankel appeals from the district court’s October 25, 2011, judgment dismissing her complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court entered judgment pursuant to its memorandum and order dated October 24, 2011, granting the motion of defendants-appellees Brian F. McDonough and Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (“Drinker Biddle”) to dismiss Frankel’s complaint for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty and denying Frankel leave to replead.

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo, “accepting all factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” ECA & Local 134 IBEW Joint Pension Trust of Chicago v. JP Morgan Chase Co., 553 F.3d 187, 196 (2d Cir.2009). We review denial of leave to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion. Hutchison v. Deutsche Bank Sec. Inc., 647 F.3d 479, 490 (2d Cir.2011).

We have conducted an independent review of the record in light of these principles. For substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned decision, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the complaint and that it did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to replead.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Sofía Frankel appeals from the district court’s October 25, 2011, judgment dismissing her complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court entered judgment pursuant to its memorandum and order dated October 24, 2011, granting the motion of defendants-appellees Brian F. McDonough and Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (“Drinker Biddle”) to dismiss Frankel’s complaint for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty and denying Frankel leave to replead.

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo, “accepting all factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” ECA & Local 134 IBEW Joint Pension Trust of Chicago v. JP Morgan Chase Co., 553 F.3d 187, 196 (2d Cir.2009). We review denial of leave to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion. Hutchison v. Deutsche Bank Sec. Inc., 647 F.3d 479, 490 (2d Cir.2011).

We have conducted an independent review of the record in light of these principles. For substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned decision, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the complaint and that it did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to replead.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 F. App'x 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frankel-v-mcdonough-ca2-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack