Opinion ID: 2633558
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: District court hearing

Text: At the May 6 hearing, the court indicated that it wished to address the motions to dismiss Paul's amended complaint. Appellants then raised the consolidation issue and questioned whether they would be permitted to file the proposed consolidated complaint. They noted that, if the court accepted their proposal to file a consolidated complaint, the motions to dismiss would become moot. It was pointed out that Belec had not filed a separate amended complaint, and counsel for Glenbrook Capital and Kahn, who were also present at the hearing, reminded the court that, while those appellants were part of the proposed consolidated complaint, they were not part of the discussion relating to the motions to dismiss, since no motions had been filed against them. The district court responded by indicating that the parties should proceed to address the dismissal motions. Paul's counsel advised that he could only speak on behalf of Paul and his amended complaint, and the court agreed. But in addressing the motions to dismiss Paul's amended complaint for failure to sufficiently allege demand futility, Paul's counsel indicated that the demand futility section[s] of his amended complaint and the proposed consolidated complaint were the same. Apparently as a result, the argument on the motions to dismiss was thereafter based solely on the proposed consolidated complaint, even though it had not yet been filed. Ultimately, the district court determined that neither the amended complaint nor the proposed consolidated complaint sufficiently alleged demand futility. [4] Consequently, the court dismissed all four suits  including Paul's and Belec's, Glenbrook Capital's, and Kahn's suits  without leave to amend. This appeal followed. [5]