Plaintiff claims that the series has undergone an unprecedented collapse based upon the alleged inconsistent draftsmanship of the ghostwriters.
Defendants dispute that they breached any term of the parties' contract.
Finally, defendants claim that plaintiffs were not damaged by any alleged breach since the books Stein received assistance with included some of the best sellers in the series. It is well established that leave to amend is liberally granted. However, when a claim sought to be asserted in a newly amended pleading is without merit, the Court may deny the requested amendment. The Court finds that the new claims plaintiffs' are attempting to assert in the purposed amended complaint fail to state a cause of action. Having failed to allege malicious intent by Stine, plaintiffs have not stated a cause of action against Stine for inducing a breach of plaintiffs' contract with Parachute.