Case Name: In re: DUKE ENERGY CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, The Albert Fadem Trust and Lloyd R. Fadem, as Trustee, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Wickerware, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan; Barry Family, LP, Donald Goldstein, David L. Boushey, Margie Elstein, J.B. Pozner Trust, Alan Kushner, Henry Willet, Elliot S. Honig, Mikel Kinser, Franklin Richardson and Lucille Richardson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiffs, v. Duke Energy Corp., Richard Priory and Robert Brace Defendants-Appellees, William Coley, Fred Fowler, Harvey Padewer and Deloitte & Touche, LLP, Defendants, Sandra P. Meyer, Jeffrey L. Boyer, Richard J. Osborne, David L. Hauser, Keith G. Butler, Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. and Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., Consolidated Defendants-Appellees, Banc of America Securities, LLC, Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., Goldman, Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. and Warburg, LLC Consolidated Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-15
Citations: 113 F. App'x 427
Docket Number: Docket No. 03-9081
Parties: In re: DUKE ENERGY CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, The Albert Fadem Trust and Lloyd R. Fadem, as Trustee, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Wickerware, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan; Barry Family, LP, Donald Goldstein, David L. Boushey, Margie Elstein, J.B. Pozner Trust, Alan Kushner, Henry Willet, Elliot S. Honig, Mikel Kinser, Franklin Richardson and Lucille Richardson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiffs, v. Duke Energy Corp., Richard Priory and Robert Brace Defendants-Appellees, William Coley, Fred Fowler, Harvey Padewer and Deloitte & Touche, LLP, Defendants, Sandra P. Meyer, Jeffrey L. Boyer, Richard J. Osborne, David L. Hauser, Keith G. Butler, Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. and Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., Consolidated Defendants-Appellees, Banc of America Securities, LLC, Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., Goldman, Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. and Warburg, LLC Consolidated Defendants.
Judges: PRESENT: CARDAMONE, MCLAUGHLIN and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 113
Pages: 427–428

Head Matter:
In re: DUKE ENERGY CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, The Albert Fadem Trust and Lloyd R. Fadem, as Trustee, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Wickerware, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan; Barry Family, LP, Donald Goldstein, David L. Boushey, Margie Elstein, J.B. Pozner Trust, Alan Kushner, Henry Willet, Elliot S. Honig, Mikel Kinser, Franklin Richardson and Lucille Richardson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiffs, v. Duke Energy Corp., Richard Priory and Robert Brace Defendants-Appellees, William Coley, Fred Fowler, Harvey Padewer and Deloitte & Touche, LLP, Defendants, Sandra P. Meyer, Jeffrey L. Boyer, Richard J. Osborne, David L. Hauser, Keith G. Butler, Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. and Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., Consolidated Defendants-Appellees, Banc of America Securities, LLC, Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., Goldman, Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. and Warburg, LLC Consolidated Defendants.
Docket No. 03-9081.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Nov. 15, 2004.
Vincent R. Cappucci, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, New York, NY, for Appellants.
Howard Schiffman, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, Washington, District Court, for Appellees.
PRESENT: CARDAMONE, MCLAUGHLIN and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
We have considered all of appellants' arguments and, substantially for the reasons explained by the District Court in its Memorandum Order, entered October 17, 2003, we hold that each is without merit. We also find that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' request for leave to amend where plaintiffs failed to file a proper motion to amend or a proposed amendment and where they have already had one opportunity to amend. See McLaughlin v. Anderson, 962 F.2d 187, 195 (2d Cir.1992).
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.