Epstein Secrets

aint. It is well-settled that [HN3] "an order denying leave to amend a complaint is not a 'final decision' within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291." DeNubilo, 343 F.2d at 456-57. Accordingly, the district court's denial of the Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint would not be certifiable pursuant t

, Defendants-Appellees. Docket No. 95-7925 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 91 F.3d 385; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 19807; 35 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1352 April 19, 1996, Argued August 7, 1996, Decided For internal use only SDNY_GM_00057306 CONFIDENTIAL — PURSUANT TO FED. R.CO

389] Greenshields Sec., Inc. v. Lau, 825 F.2d 647, 651 (2d Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the collateral order exception does not apply to this case. See DeNubilo, 343 F.2d at 456-57 (holding that the collateral order exception does not apply to an order denying a motion to amend a complaint). CONCLUSION In

Page 9 91 F.3d 385, *; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 19807, **; 35 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1352 Finally, the district court's order is not immediately appealable [HN5] under the "collateral order" exception to the final ju

aint. It is well-settled that [HN3] "an order denying leave to amend a complaint is not a 'final decision' within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291." DeNubilo, 343 F.2d at 456-57. Accordingly, the district court's denial of the Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint would not be certifiable pursuant t

Page 8 91 F.3d 385, *; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 19807, **; 35 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1352 Because the August 17th order did not dispose of all claims against all parties and because there was no Rule 54(b) certificat