Case Name: Sofia FRANKEL, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian F. McDONOUGH, an individual, and Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-12
Citations: 471 F. App'x 67
Docket Number: No. 11-4999-cv
Parties: Sofia FRANKEL, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian F. McDONOUGH, an individual, and Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 67–68

Head Matter:
Sofia FRANKEL, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian F. McDONOUGH, an individual, and Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-4999-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 12, 2012.
Jan Douglas Atlas, Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Keechl, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Frank H. Wohl (Lauren C. Freundlich on the brief), Lankier Siffert & Wohl LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
PRESENT: RALPH K WINTER, DENNY CHIN, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.

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.