Francis Asifuah v. REUVEN L. COHEN, ESQ

S.D. New York

Francis Asifuah v. REUVEN L. COHEN, ESQ

DecidedMarch 31, 2022

Docket1:20-cv-05050

StatusUnknown

This text of Francis Asifuah v. REUVEN L. COHEN, ESQ (Francis Asifuah v. REUVEN L. COHEN, ESQ) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Francis Asifuah v. REUVEN L. COHEN, ESQ, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED FRANCIS ASSIFUAH, DOC __________ DATE FILED: _3/31/2022 Plaintiff, -against- 20 Civ. 5050 (AT) REUVEN L. COHEN, ESQ.; WILLIAMS COHEN ORDER LLP, Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: Plaintiff pro se, Francis Asifuah, brings this action against Defendants Reuven L. Cohen and Williams Cohen LLP, alleging state law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and malpractice claims, and a claim for civil conspiracy. Am. Compl., ECF No. 33. On March 16, 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’'s amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 37. Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)), even when the Court construes his submissions “liberally and interprets [them] to raise the strongest arguments they suggest,” as the Court must for pro se litigants, Triestman v. Fed. Bur. of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006), Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Court further finds that amendment would be futile, therefore, the Court shall not permit amendment. Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011). In due course, the Court shall issue a memorandum opinion addressing Defendant’s motion. Additionally, because the Court previously permitted Plaintiff to file these additional documents, see ECF No. 46, Plaintiff’s motion to file additional evidence at ECF No. 47 is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 37 and 47, and mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff pro se. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2022 New York, New York

ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge

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

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED FRANCIS ASSIFUAH, DOC __________ DATE FILED: _3/31/2022 Plaintiff, -against- 20 Civ. 5050 (AT) REUVEN L. COHEN, ESQ.; WILLIAMS COHEN ORDER LLP, Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: Plaintiff pro se, Francis Asifuah, brings this action against Defendants Reuven L. Cohen and Williams Cohen LLP, alleging state law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and malpractice claims, and a claim for civil conspiracy. Am. Compl., ECF No. 33. On March 16, 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’'s amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 37. Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)), even when the Court construes his submissions “liberally and interprets [them] to raise the strongest arguments they suggest,” as the Court must for pro se litigants, Triestman v. Fed. Bur. of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006), Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Court further finds that amendment would be futile, therefore, the Court shall not permit amendment. Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011). In due course, the Court shall issue a memorandum opinion addressing Defendant’s motion. Additionally, because the Court previously permitted Plaintiff to file these additional documents, see ECF No. 46, Plaintiff’s motion to file additional evidence at ECF No. 47 is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 37 and 47, and mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff pro se. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2022 New York, New York

ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Francis Asifuah v. REUVEN L. COHEN, ESQ, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-asifuah-v-reuven-l-cohen-esq-nysd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack