Galland v. Margules

Second Circuit

Galland v. Margules

191 F. App'x 23

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 6, 2006

DocketNo. 05-5683-cv

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 191 F. App'x 23 (Galland v. Margules) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Galland v. Margules, 191 F. App'x 23 (2d Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

[24]*24SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Claude Galland (“Galland”) appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees Eric Margules, 75th Street Properties, Margules Properties, John Doe, and Jane Doe. The trial court issued a memorandum of decision, dismissing Galland’s complaint sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the scope of the issues presented on appeal.

We affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s August 2005 memorandum of decision. Galland’s alleged injuries, if true, are unfortunate but we conclude that redress for them is not available in federal court.

We have considered all of Galland’s arguments and find them to be without merit. The decision of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

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

[24]*24SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Claude Galland (“Galland”) appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees Eric Margules, 75th Street Properties, Margules Properties, John Doe, and Jane Doe. The trial court issued a memorandum of decision, dismissing Galland’s complaint sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the scope of the issues presented on appeal.

We affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s August 2005 memorandum of decision. Galland’s alleged injuries, if true, are unfortunate but we conclude that redress for them is not available in federal court.

We have considered all of Galland’s arguments and find them to be without merit. The decision of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 F. App'x 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galland-v-margules-ca2-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack