Goldrich v. Masco Corporation

S.D. New York

Goldrich v. Masco Corporation

DecidedMarch 20, 2024

Docket7:22-cv-03769

StatusUnknown

This text of Goldrich v. Masco Corporation (Goldrich v. Masco Corporation) 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

Goldrich v. Masco Corporation, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------X STEVEN GOLDRICH,

Plaintiff, -against- 22 CIVIL 3769 (KMK)

JUDGMENT WATKINS WELLNESS and WELLNESS MARKETING CORPORATION, d/b/a ENDLESS POOLS,

Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------X It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion & Order dated March 20, 2024, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted. Plaintiff has already amended his Complaint twice, once after being put on notice of its deficiencies. See Goldrich, 2023 WL 2649049, at *10 (rendering "the first adjudication of Plaintiff's claims on the merits"). "To grant Plaintiff[] leave to amend would be allowing [him] a 'third bite at the apple,' which courts in this district routinely deny." Binn v. Bernstein, No. 19- CV-6122, 2020 WL 4550312, at *34 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2020) (collecting cases), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 4547167 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2020); see also Kamdem- Ouaffo v. Pepsico, Inc., 160 F. Supp. 3d 553, 574 n.28 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ("[T]he [c]ourt has given [p]laintiff two bites at the apple, and there is no need for a third bite."); cf. Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 898 F.3d 243, 257-58 (2d Cir. 2018) ("When a plaintiff was aware of the deficiencies in his complaint when he first amended, he clearly has no right to a second amendment even if the proposed second amended complaint in fact cures the defects of the first. Simply put, a busy district court need not allow itself to be imposed upon by the presentation of theories seriatim." (alteration adopted) (footnote and quotation marks omitted)). Plaintiff's claims are therefore dismissed with prejudice; accordingly, the case is closed. Dated: New York, New York March 20, 2024

RUBY J. KRAJICK Clerkof Court BY: K MANGO DeputyClerk

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 ------------------------------------------------------------X STEVEN GOLDRICH,

Plaintiff, -against- 22 CIVIL 3769 (KMK)

JUDGMENT WATKINS WELLNESS and WELLNESS MARKETING CORPORATION, d/b/a ENDLESS POOLS,

Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------X It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion & Order dated March 20, 2024, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted. Plaintiff has already amended his Complaint twice, once after being put on notice of its deficiencies. See Goldrich, 2023 WL 2649049, at *10 (rendering "the first adjudication of Plaintiff's claims on the merits"). "To grant Plaintiff[] leave to amend would be allowing [him] a 'third bite at the apple,' which courts in this district routinely deny." Binn v. Bernstein, No. 19- CV-6122, 2020 WL 4550312, at *34 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2020) (collecting cases), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 4547167 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2020); see also Kamdem- Ouaffo v. Pepsico, Inc., 160 F. Supp. 3d 553, 574 n.28 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ("[T]he [c]ourt has given [p]laintiff two bites at the apple, and there is no need for a third bite."); cf. Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 898 F.3d 243, 257-58 (2d Cir. 2018) ("When a plaintiff was aware of the deficiencies in his complaint when he first amended, he clearly has no right to a second amendment even if the proposed second amended complaint in fact cures the defects of the first. Simply put, a busy district court need not allow itself to be imposed upon by the presentation of theories seriatim." (alteration adopted) (footnote and quotation marks omitted)). Plaintiff's claims are therefore dismissed with prejudice; accordingly, the case is closed. Dated: New York, New York March 20, 2024

RUBY J. KRAJICK Clerkof Court BY: K MANGO DeputyClerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Goldrich v. Masco Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldrich-v-masco-corporation-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack