Franza v. Stanford

S.D. New York

Franza v. Stanford

DecidedDecember 11, 2019

Docket7:18-cv-10892

StatusUnknown

This text of Franza v. Stanford (Franza v. Stanford) 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

Franza v. Stanford, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRUPICA iY PILED penne. # ee DOMINIC M. FRANZA, Lo \ \ Plaintiff, ) DATE FILED: [2] □□ i, -against- □□□ CIVIL 10892 (KMK) JUDGMENT TINA M. STANFORD, et al., Defendants. □□□ nee eee ee eee eee eee eee KX It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated December 11, 2019, Defendants' Motion is granted. Because this dismissal is based on legal conclusions concerning the applicability of absolute immunity and the absence of "clearly established law," the Court concludes that amendment would be futile. See Bogart v. City of New York, No. 13-CV-1017, 2015 WL 5036963, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2015)(denying leave to amend, for futility, because the defendants did not "def[y] clearly established law"); Karris v. Varulo, No. 14-CV-1077, 2014 WL 1414483, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2014) ("[A]ny amendment to [the] plaintiffs amended complaint would be futile because, inter alia, all defendants are entitled to absolute immunity... (italics omitted)); Dilacio v. N.Y.C. Dist. Council of the United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 593 F. Supp. 2d 571, 578 (S.D.NLY. 2008) (denying leave to replead, for futility, because defendant was "absolutely immune" from suit). Accordingly, and because Plaintiff has already amended his Complaint twice, dismissal is with prejudice. See Jin v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 84, 101 (2d Cir. 2002) ("[T]he district court has the discretion to deny leave [to amend] if there is a good reason for it, such as futility..." (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)); see also Knife Rights, Inc. v. Vance, 802 F.3d 377, 389 (2d Cir. 2015) ("[A] party may amend its pleadings more than once ‘only with the opposing party's written consent or the courts leave.'" (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2))); accordingly, the case is closed.

Dated: New York, New York December 11, 2019

RUBY J. KRAJICK Clerk of Court BY: Deputy na

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRUPICA iY PILED penne. # ee DOMINIC M. FRANZA, Lo \ \ Plaintiff, ) DATE FILED: [2] □□ i, -against- □□□ CIVIL 10892 (KMK) JUDGMENT TINA M. STANFORD, et al., Defendants. □□□ nee eee ee eee eee eee eee KX It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated December 11, 2019, Defendants' Motion is granted. Because this dismissal is based on legal conclusions concerning the applicability of absolute immunity and the absence of "clearly established law," the Court concludes that amendment would be futile. See Bogart v. City of New York, No. 13-CV-1017, 2015 WL 5036963, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2015)(denying leave to amend, for futility, because the defendants did not "def[y] clearly established law"); Karris v. Varulo, No. 14-CV-1077, 2014 WL 1414483, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2014) ("[A]ny amendment to [the] plaintiffs amended complaint would be futile because, inter alia, all defendants are entitled to absolute immunity... (italics omitted)); Dilacio v. N.Y.C. Dist. Council of the United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 593 F. Supp. 2d 571, 578 (S.D.NLY. 2008) (denying leave to replead, for futility, because defendant was "absolutely immune" from suit). Accordingly, and because Plaintiff has already amended his Complaint twice, dismissal is with prejudice. See Jin v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 84, 101 (2d Cir. 2002) ("[T]he district court has the discretion to deny leave [to amend] if there is a good reason for it, such as futility..." (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)); see also Knife Rights, Inc. v. Vance, 802 F.3d 377, 389 (2d Cir. 2015) ("[A] party may amend its pleadings more than once ‘only with the opposing party's written consent or the courts leave.'" (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2))); accordingly, the case is closed.

Dated: New York, New York December 11, 2019

RUBY J. KRAJICK Clerk of Court BY: Deputy na

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Franza v. Stanford, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franza-v-stanford-nysd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack