Lynn v. Paramount Global

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Plaintiff, -against- 24 CIVIL 7219 (NRB) JUDGMENT PARAMOUNT GLOBAL, et al., Defendants. panne KX It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum and Order dated July 11, 2025, defendants’ motions to dismiss are granted with We also dismiss plaintiffs third amended complaint as to non-moving defendants Natalie Erika James, Skylar James, Christian White, and Does 1-5 “because the issues concerning [the non-moving defendants] are substantially the same as those concerning the other defendants, and [plaintiff] . . . had notice and a full opportunity to make out [her] claim[.]” Hecht v. Commerce Clearing House, 897 F.2d 21, 26 n.6 (2d Cir. 1990); see also Whitfield v. O'Connell, No. 09 Civ. 1925 (WHP), 2010 WL 1010060, at *7 (S.D.N-Y. Mar. 18, 2010) (“A district court has the power to sua sponte dismiss claims against nonmoving defendants for failure to state a claim, as long as the plaintiff has been given an opportunity to be heard.”), aff'd, 402 F. App’x 563 (2d Cir. 2010). Judgment is entered for all defendants; accordingly, the case is closed. Dated: New York, New York July 11, 2025 TAMMI M. HELLWIG Clerkof Court BY: MAN? Deputy Clerk