Order | Filed: June 23, 2026
| Entered: June 23, 2026
Finkelstein v. Fox et al
Securities/Commodities | New York Southern
Order for Initial Pretrial Conference
NOTICE OF INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, counsel for all parties shall appear for an initial pretrial conference with the Court on August 19, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. The conference will be held remotely by telephone in accordance with Paragraph 3.B of the Court's Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases. The parties should join the conference by calling the Court's dedicated conference line at (855) 244-8681 and using access code 2303 019 3884, followed by the pound (#) key. When prompted for an attendee ID number, press the pound (#) key again. All counsel must also familiarize themselves with the Court's Individual Rules, which are available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jesse-m-furman. Absent leave of Court obtained by letter-motion filed before the conference, all pretrial conferences must be attended by the attorney who will serve as principal trial counsel. Counsel are directed to confer with each other prior to the conference regarding settlement and each of the other subjects to be considered at a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 conference. Additionally, in accordance with Paragraph 3.D of the Court's Individual Rules and Practices, the parties are hereby ORDERED to file on ECF a joint letter, described below, as well as a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order attached as an exhibit to the joint letter, no later than Thursday of the week prior to the initial pretrial conference. The parties shall use this Court's form Proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order, which is also available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jesse-m-furman. Any open legal issues can be addressed at the conference. (And as further set forth herein.) SO ORDERED. Initial Conference set for 8/19/2026 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jesse M. Furman. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/23/2026) (ar)
Order | Filed: June 23, 2026
Finkelstein v. Fox et al
Securities/Commodities | New York Southern
Order
OPINION AND ORDER re: 163 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by Jacky Wu, Gary Jacobs, Justin Deutsch, Chantel E. Lenard, Benjamin Carson, Jr., James Murphy, Baron Davis, Phillip P. Scala, Amy Hanson, 168 MOTION to Dismiss Wi th Regard to Andrew Fox. filed by Andrew Fox, 125 MOTION to Dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. filed by Arena Investors GP, LLC, AI Amped II, LLC, Arena Finance Markets, LP, AI Amped I, LLC, Arena Structured Private I nvestments LLC, Mt. Whitney Securities, LLC, Arena Origination Co., LLC, Arena Investors, LP, Arena Special Opportunities Fund, LP, Arena Special Opportunities Partners, I, LP, 171 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by Leah Schweller , Craig Denson, 166 MOTION to Dismiss Korr Defendants Motion to Dismiss Fourth Amended Complaint and Memorandum of Law in Support. filed by Korr Acquisitions Group, Korr Value L.P., Kenneth Orr. For the foregoing reasons, the mo tions to dismiss filed by the Arena Defendants, the KORR Defendants, and Fox are GRANTED. The Director Defendants' motion to dismiss is also GRANTED, except as to Scala with respect to his alleged omissions regarding the existence of the KORR Value LPA. Finally, Denson and Schweller's motion to dismiss is also GRANTED, except as to their alleged omissions and misstatements regarding Charg's liquidity or lack thereof. That leaves only the question of whether Plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend. Although leave to amend should be freely given "when justice so requires," FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2), it is "within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to amend," Broidy Ca p. Mgmt. LLC v. Benomar, 944 F.3d 436, 447 (2d Cir. 2019). First, the problems with Plaintiffs' dismissed claims are substantive, so amendment would be futile. See, e.g., Roundtree v. NYC, No. 19-CV-2475 (JMF), 2021 WL 1667193, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. A pr. 28, 2021) (collecting cases). Second, Plaintiffs neither request further leave to amend nor suggest that they are in possession of facts that would cure the problems with their dismissed claims. See, e.g., Clark v. Kitt, No. 12-CV-8061 (CS), 2014 WL 4054284, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2014) ("A plaintiff need not be given leave to amend if [it] fails to specify how amendment would cure the pleading deficiencies in [its] complaint."); accord TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports, Inc., 758 F. 3d 493, 505 (2d Cir. 2014). Finally, Plaintiffs were previously warned that they "will not be given any further opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss." ECF No. 107. "Plaintiff's failu re to fix deficiencies in its previous pleadings is alone sufficient ground to deny leave to amend...." Transeo S.A.R.L. v. Bessemer Venture Partners VI L.P., 936 F. Supp. 2d 376, 415 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (collecting cases). Accordingly, the Court wi ll not grant Plaintiffs leave to amend the dismissed claims. By separate Order entered today, the Court will schedule an initial pretrial conference. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all Defendants except Leah Schweller, Craig Denson, and Phillip P. Scala as defendants in this case and to terminate ECF Nos. 125, 163, 166, 168, 171. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/23/2026) (ar)