1

09- 4418- cv Th e Me r i t Gr o u p , LL C v

. S i n t Ma a r t e n I n t ’ l T e l e c o mm

. S e r v s

. , NV

UN ITED STA

TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT


## SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summ ary ord er do no t have precedent ial effect. Citatio n to sum mary or ders filed on or

after January 1, 2007, is permit ted and is governed by F ederal Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 32.1 and thi s court’s Local Rule 32.1 .1. When citing a summ ary ord er in a docu ment file d wit h t hi s co ur t, a p ar ty m us t c it e ei th er

th e F ed er al

App en dix o r

anel ect r on ic da ta ba se (withthe not ation “sum mary or der”) . A party citin g a summar y order must serve a copy of it on any part

y not r epresented by cou nsel.

At a stated term

of the Un ited Stat es Court of Appeals for t he Second Circuit , held at th e Daniel Pat rick Moynihan Un ited Stat es Courthouse, 500 Pearl St reet, in t he City of New York, on the t wenty-sixthday of May, two thou sand and ten.

PR E SE NT:

J OS É A. C AB R ANES , R O BERT A. K

A T ZMA NN , D ENNY C H IN , Circuit Jud

ges

.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x T HE M ER I T G R OUP , LL C,

Pl aint iff -A ppella nt ,

-v .- No . 09 -4 418 -c v

S I N T M A A R T EN I NTERNATI O NAL T EL EC OMMU NI C A T I ONS S ER VI CES , NV, and T HE T EL EM G R OUP , NV,

Defenda nts-App ellees

.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 1 2 F OR

P LAIN TIF F

- AP P ELLAN T: L EON A R D N. F L A MM , N ew Yo r k, 3 NY. 4 5 FOR DEF ENDANTS-APP ELL EES: C HRI S TOPHER J. K LAT ELL (D avi d 6 B . G ol ds te in
, of counsel ) 7 Ra binowitz, Boudin, Standa rd, 8 Kr in s ky &Li ebe r man , P .C., New 9 Yor k, N Y. 102 1 2 Appea l from a September 26, 2009 judg ment of the United States Distr ict Court for the 3 So uthern D is tr

ict of New Yor k ( Geo rge B . D ani els
, Judge ). 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERAT ION, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, A DJUDGED, AND 6 DE CRE ED th at the j udgm ent of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t b e AF F IRME D

. 7 8 Pl ain ti ff

-a pp ell ant T he M er it Gr oup, LL C (“ pl ain ti ff

”) app eals fr omth e Di s tr

ict Cou r t’ s or der 9 di s mi s s ing it s com pl ain t an d d eny ing it s cr os s -m ot

io n f or leav e t o am endinpl ain ti ff ’s act io n t o r eco ver 10 fe es pu r s uan t t o a f

in anci al s er

vic es agr eem ent

ent er ed i nt o wi thdef

end ant s -a pp ell ees 11 Telecommunica tions Services, NV, and The Telem Group, NV (jointly “de fendants”). Plaintiff claims 12 on appea l that the Distr ict Court erred in (1) dismis sing plaintiff’s claim that the implied c ovenant of 13 good faith and fair dea ling required defenda nts t o pay pla intiff a fee, and (2) deny ing plai ntiff leave to 14 amend its complaint. W e we re informed at oral argument that plaintiff is not ass erting the breach of 15 contract cla im on appea l, so we willnot address it here. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16 r emaining f

act s , p r oce du r al his to ry, an d i s s ues onapp eal. 17 18 We r evi ew de novo the Distr ict Court’s decision dismis sing a compla int purs uant to Rule 12(b)(6), 19 see Cham bers v. T

ime W arner, Inc. , 282 F.3d 147, 15 2 (2d Cir. 2002). “To survive dismis sal, [a] plai ntiff 20 mu s t p r ov

id e the gr ou nd s up onwhi ch his clai m r es ts th r ough f actual all egat io ns s uf fi cien t ‘ to r ais e a 21 r igh t t o r eli ef

abo ve the s pec ul ati

ve l evel .’” AT

SI Co mmc’ ns , I nc. v. Shaar Fu nd, Lt d. , 49 3 F .3d87, 98 (

2d 22 Cir . 20 07) (quo ti ng Bell A tl . Co rp. v. T

wombly , 55 0 U. S. 5 44, 555 (2 007)) . We r evi ew the D is tr ict Cou r t’ s 23 denial

of leav e t o am enda com pl ain t f or “ab us e of di s cr et io n. ” See, e.g.
, Jin v. Metr

o. Life Ins. Co. , 31 0 24 F. 3d84, 101 (2 d Ci r . 20 02) . “Adi s tr ict cou r t h as abu s ed i ts di s cr et io n i f i t b as ed i ts r ul

ing onan 25 erroneous view of the law or on a c learly e rroneous assess ment of the evidenc e, or rendered a dec ision 26 th at c ann ot

be l ocat ed w

ithi n the r ang e of

permi s s ib le d ecis io ns .” Sims v. Blot , 534 F.3d 117, 13 2 (2d Cir. 27 200 8) (i nt ernal

qu ot ati onmar ks , ci tat

io ns , an d al te r ati on s omit te d)

. 28 29 Af

te r con du ct ing anin dep end ent

r evi ew o f the r eco r d an d cas e law , we c on clu de, s ub s tan ti ally 30 fo r th e r eas on s s tat ed i n the w ell -r eas on ed d ecis io n an d o r der of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t, T he Me ri t G ro up, 31 LL C v. Sint Maa rten Int’l Telecomm . Servs ., NV , N o. 08- cv- 349 6, 2 009 WL 3 053 739 (S .D .N .Y. Sep t. 24, 32 2009), that the District Court did not impr operly dismiss plaintiff’s complaint and did not err in denying 33 plaintiff leave to amend on its cross -motion. 34 35 CONCLUSI ON 36 37 We have considered ea ch of plaintiff’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. 38 For the reasons s tated above , we A FFI RM the judgment of the District Court. 39 40 FOR THE C OU R

T,

41 Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk of Court

42

43