#LLOYDS TSB BANK COM TRIAL#

City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir.2008) ('A party seeking to file an amended complaint postjudgment must first have the judgment vacated or set aside pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. In such circumstances, the Second Circuit has explicitly approved a motion for plaintiff for relief under Rule 59(e). In the case at bar the Government, with apparent total confidence in the sufficiency of its OC, did not include that alternative prayer and the Court dismissed the pleading without granting leave to replead sua sponte.

Courts routinely grant such leave, at least once. Private plaintiffs alleging securities fraud opposing motions to dismiss for failure to plead with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) routinely ask, in the alternative, for leave to replead if the motion succeeds. 6, 2007), Judge Sand dismissed on motion a complaint sounding in contract and tort, entertained plaintiffs Rule 59(e) motion for relief, adhered to his prior judgment, but granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. The Second Circuit affirmed, on the ground that the amendment would be futile but there was no suggestion that plaintiffs' motion did not lie under the Rule. The district court denied plaintiffs' Rule 59(e) motion. Plaintiffs moved under Rule 59(e) to amend the judgment of dismissal and grant them leave to amend their complaint: precisely the relief the Government seeks on this motion.

IMCERA Group, Inc., 47 F.3d 47 (2d Cir.1995), the district court dismissed a securities fraud case on defendants' motion. A case may be dismissed on motion, as this one was, and judgment entered accordingly courts routinely consider Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend such a judgment. The use of the semi-colon in Rule 59's caption indicates that a different subject is being introduced. While Rules 59(a)-(d) by their terms apply only to cases that have been tried, Rule 59(e) is not limited by its language to judgments entered after trial. The argument misreads the Rule and disregards cases construing it.

#LLOYDS TSB BANK COM TRIAL#

Lloyds TSB argues that Rule 59 cannot apply to the case at bar 'because the text of the Rule makes it plain that it addresses motions for new trials after a trial has been completed and the amendment of judgments entered after trial.' Brief at 4-5.

It provides: 'A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment.' Rule 59(e) deals with a motion to alter or amend a judgment. Rule 59 is captioned: 'New Trial Altering or Amending a Judgment.' Rules 59(a)-59(d) deal with various aspects of a motion for a new trial. While its Notice of Motion is silent on the point, the Government's briefs show that principal reliance is placed on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Substantively, the Bank contends that the proposed amendment should be *328 disallowed as futile, since it would not withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12. Procedurally, the Bank contends that the Rules do not afford the Government a remedy and its only recourse is a direct appeal from this Court's opinion and order in Lloyds TSB I. The Bank opposes the motion on procedural and substantive grounds. The Government's Notice of Motion does not specify the Rule or Rules of Federal Procedure upon which it is based. The Government now moves the Court 'for an order amending its judgment of Madismissing the Plaintiffs Complaint against Lloyds TSB Bank pic without prejudice in order to grant the Plaintiff leave to file the Proposed Amended Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit A.' Notice of Motion dated April 14, 2009. The Clerk entered judgment dismissing the OC without prejudice. 2009) ( 'Lloyds TSB I'), with which familiarity is assumed. The Court dismissed the Government's original Complaint ('the OC') for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, stating its reasons in an opinion reported at 639 F. Plaintiff United States of America ('the Government') sued Defendant Lloyds TSB Bank pic ('Lloyds TSB' or 'the Bank') to impose a civil penalty upon the Bank pursuant to the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 as amended ('the MLCA'), 18 U.S.C. Marc Joel Gottridge, Lovells, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant. Attorney's Office, New York, NY, for Plaintiff. 2d 326 (2009) United States of America, Plaintiff,

Lloyds tsb bank com