Jane Doe v. Town of Clarkstown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Plaintiff, -against- 23 CIVIL 5364 (KMK) JUDGMENT TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN, Defendant. panne KX It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion & Order dated September 25, 2025, the Motion is granted. Plaintiff has already amended her twice, once after being put on notice of its deficiencies. See Martinez, 2024 WL 4124717, at *5 (rendering “the first adjudication on the merits of Plaintiffs claims”). “To grant Plaintiff]] leave to amend be allowing [her] a ‘third bite at the apple,’ which courts in this district routinely deny.” Binn v. 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, 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 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 September 26, 2025 TAMMI M. HELLWIG Clerkof Court BY: HK MANGO Deputy Clerk