Opinion ID: 72909
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: 7 In this appeal, the parties raise a variety of contentions, several of which do not warrant detailed discussion. First, we affirm the district court’s order denying plaintiff Malick’s motion for leave to amend his complaint, which was filed more than ten years after the initiation of this lawsuit. Second, we affirm the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the complaint. Third, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that plaintiffs sought to introduce at trial. Fourth, we deny as premature plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Fifth, we deny defendants’ motion asking this court to award double costs. These five matters we will not discuss any further. Several of plaintiffs’ arguments, however, do warrant further discussion. These include plaintiffs’ contentions that: (1) the district court erred by concluding the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their RICO claims; (2) the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Konstand’s state law shareholder derivative claim; (3) the district court erred by granting a directed verdict in favor of the defendants following the close of the plaintiffs’ case at trial; and (4) the district court erred in denying the requested postjudgment relief. We will discuss each contention in turn, after we set out the proper standard of review.