Prince v. The Intercept

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Plaintiff, -against- 21 CIVIL 10075 (LAP) JUDGMENT THE INTERCEPT, et al., Defendant. wee eK

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion & Order dated July 12, 2023, Defendants’ motion to dismiss 1s GRANTED. Because Plaintiff was aware of the deficiencies in his Complaint when he filed the AC and his subsequent amendments failed to address these deficiencies, Defendants’ motion is granted with prejudice. See Kling v. World Health Org., 532 F. Supp. 3d 141, 153 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (citing Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Assn, 898 F.3d 243, 257-58 (2d Cir. 2018) ("[iJn general, a plaintiff's failure to fix deficiencies in the previous pleading, after being provided notice of them, is alone sufficient ground to deny leave to amend"). Accordingly, the case is closed. Dated: New York, New York July 13, 2023 RUBY J. KRAJICK

Clerk of Court

BY: CR Deputy Clerk