Ormeno v. Relentless Consulting Inc

S.D. New York

Ormeno v. Relentless Consulting Inc

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 11, 2022·No. 1:21-cv-01643·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK □□ K VICTOR ORMENO d/b/a/ KH ENTERTAINMENT, Plaintiff, -against- 21 CIVIL 1643 (LIL) JUDGMENT RELENTLESS CONSULTING INC, JUAN TORO individually d/b/a RELENTLESS AGENCY, W ENTERTAINMENT, JUAN LUIS MORENO LUNA, Defendants. □□ It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED): That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated January 11, 2022, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED with prejudice. See Jordan v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 91 F. Supp. 3d 491, 510 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ("Granting leave to amend is ‘futile’ if a revised claim still 'could not withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)."") (quoting Dougherty v. Town of N. Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83, 88 (2d Cir. 2002)); Cortese v. Skanska Koch, Inc., 2021 WL 429971, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2021) (holding that complaint should be dismissed with prejudice where plaintiff's claims are clearly time-barred; accordingly, the case is closed. Dated: New York, New York January 11, 2022

RUBY J. KRAJICK Clerk of Court BY: PMGARGO Deputy Clerk

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 □□ K VICTOR ORMENO d/b/a/ KH ENTERTAINMENT, Plaintiff, -against- 21 CIVIL 1643 (LIL) JUDGMENT RELENTLESS CONSULTING INC, JUAN TORO individually d/b/a RELENTLESS AGENCY, W ENTERTAINMENT, JUAN LUIS MORENO LUNA, Defendants. □□ It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED): That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated January 11, 2022, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED with prejudice. See Jordan v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 91 F. Supp. 3d 491, 510 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ("Granting leave to amend is ‘futile’ if a revised claim still 'could not withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)."") (quoting Dougherty v. Town of N. Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83, 88 (2d Cir. 2002)); Cortese v. Skanska Koch, Inc., 2021 WL 429971, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2021) (holding that complaint should be dismissed with prejudice where plaintiff's claims are clearly time-barred; accordingly, the case is closed. Dated: New York, New York January 11, 2022

RUBY J. KRAJICK Clerk of Court BY: PMGARGO Deputy Clerk

Ormeno v. Relentless Consulting Inc, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

Ormeno v. Relentless Consulting Inc (Ormeno v. Relentless Consulting Inc) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related