Ballentine v. Credit One Bank N.A.

S.D. New York

Ballentine v. Credit One Bank N.A.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 23, 2025·No. 1:24-cv-04710·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK QUINTIN JEROME BALLENTINE, Plaintiff, 24-CV-4710 (LTS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL CREDIT ONE BANK N.A., Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: By order dated November 21, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 60 days. That order specified that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff's federal claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: January 23, 2025 New York, New York /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK QUINTIN JEROME BALLENTINE, Plaintiff, 24-CV-4710 (LTS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL CREDIT ONE BANK N.A., Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: By order dated November 21, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 60 days. That order specified that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff's federal claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: January 23, 2025 New York, New York /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

Ballentine v. Credit One Bank N.A., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Ballentine v. Credit One Bank N.A. (Ballentine v. Credit One Bank N.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related