
    The MERIT GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SINT MAARTEN INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, NV, and The Telem Group, NV, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-4418-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 26, 2010.
    Leonard N. Flamm, New York, NY, for plaintiff-appellant.
    
      Christopher J. Klatell (David B. Gold-stein, of counsel) Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C., New York, NY, for defendants-appellees.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant The Merit Group, LLC (“plaintiff’) appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing its complaint and denying its cross-motion for leave to amend in plaintiffs action to recover fees pursuant to a financial services agreement entered into with defendants-appellees Telecommunications Services, NV, and The Telem Group, NV (jointly “defendants”). Plaintiff claims on appeal that the District Court erred in (1) dismissing plaintiffs claim that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing required defendants to pay plaintiff a fee, and (2) denying plaintiff leave to amend its complaint. We were informed at oral argument that plaintiff is not asserting the breach of contract claim on appeal, so we will not address it here. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

We review de novo the District Court’s decision dismissing a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), see Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). “To survive dismissal, [a] plaintiff must provide the grounds upon which his claim rests through factual allegations suf-

ficient ‘to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.’ ” ATSI Commc’ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir.2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). We review the District Court’s denial of leave to amend a complaint for “abuse of discretion.” See, e.g., Jin v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 84, 101 (2d Cir.2002). “A district court has abused its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or rendered a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted).

After conducting an independent review of the record and case law, we conclude, substantially for the reasons stated in the well-reasoned decision and order of the District Court, The Merit Group, LLC v. Sint Maarten Int’l Telecomm. Servs., NV, No. 08-cv-3496, 2009 WL 3053739 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.24, 2009), that the District Court did not improperly dismiss plaintiffs complaint and did not err in denying plaintiff leave to amend on its cross-motion.

CONCLUSION

We have considered each of plaintiffs arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit.

For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.  