January 17, 2014
OLIVIA BUCKNER BAILEY On Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of all Other Consumers Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
ATLANTIC AUTOMOTIVE CORP., et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION TO AMEND
MARVIN J. GARBIS, District Judge.
The Court has before it Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [Document 33] and the materials submitted relating thereto. The Court finds a hearing unnecessary.
The Court has issued, herewith, its Memorandum and Order Re: Motion to Dismiss addressing the Second Amended Complaint and dismissing Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants other than Heritage Chevrolet-Buick, Inc. ("Heritage") and its parent corporation, Atlantic Automotive Corporation ("Atlantic"), and dismissing all RICO claims.
By the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks to file a Third Amended Complaint. As stated by Plaintiff, the additions to the second Amended Complaint:
simply (i) amplify prior allegations that all Defendants, as part of their conspiracy (both at common law and under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. ), sold prior short-term rentals without the disclosures required by Maryland law, and (ii) flesh out in more detail prior allegations as to how the Defendants' crossselling and marketing of one another's vehicles made each of them "legally Capable" of selling the Named Plaintiff's vehicle as well as the vehicles of each of the putative class members.
[Document 33-1] at 1-2.
The proposed amendments, if made, would not have any effect upon the conclusion reached by the Court in the Memorandum and Order Re: Motion to Dismiss. The conspiracy claims would still be dismissed by virtue of the Copperweld decision. The RICO claims would still be dismissed. Even if Plaintiff's allegations "upon information and belief" are adequate, there would remain the absence of distinctiveness and the absence of a pattern of racketeering activity in regard to Heritage's sales.
The denial of amendment does not constitute a ruling that evidence regarding the allegations in question necessarily would be inadmissible in a trial of the remaining claims.
For the foregoing reasons:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [Document 33] is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff shall arrange a telephone conference regarding the scheduling of further proceedings herein to be held by January 31, 2014.