Samuel Giancarlo, et al. v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., et al.

The question presented arises from the unique procedural history of this case and the actions of the courts below in disregarding Petitioners’ statement of their claims. Does manifest injustice result from the errors associated with the district court’s dismissal of Petitioners’ complaint, the errors of the appellate court in affirming the district court’s dismissal, and the unique circumstances of this case – which include: • Thirteen (13) years of litigation; • Denial of Respondents’ initial motion to dismiss; • Completion of both fact and expert discovery; • Followed by an involuntary four-and-a-half (4.5) year litigation stay; • Followed by Petitioners’ one and only request for leave to file an amended complaint; • Followed by the district court’s denial of leave to amend based solely on delay in another case; • Followed by the district court’s refusal to issue deadlines and timely rule upon motions; • Followed five (5) years later by the district court granting a ten-year-old FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, without consideration of the proposed amendment; and