SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant MIG, Inc. (“plaintiff’) appeals from a March 29, 2010 order dismissing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) its legal malpractice suit against defendant-appellee Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, L.L.P. (“defendant”) with regard to the law firm’s representation of plaintiff in connection with the issuance of plaintiffs preferred stock in 1997. Plaintiff claims, among other things, that it alleged facts sufficient to toll New York’s statute of limitations pursuant to the “continuous representation doctrine.” We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this action.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of an action for failure to state a claim, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), assuming *409all well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations in the complaint to be true. See generally Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Selevan v. N.Y. Thruway Auth., 584 F.3d 82, 88 (2d Cir.2009).
For substantially the reasons stated by the District Court in its well-reasoned Opinion and Order of March 29, 2010, MIG, Inc. v. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, L.L.P., 701 F.Supp.2d 518 (S.D.N.Y.2010), we affirm the judgment disposing of all claims.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the District Court as to all claims is AFFIRMED.