Roth v. LAL Family Corporation

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ANDREWEROTH, Plaintiff, -against- 23 CIVIL 9265 (JPC) JUDGMENT LAL FAMILY CORPORATION and LAL FAMILY PARTNERS L.P., Defendants. wn eK It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated September 10, 2024, LALFP and LALFCs motion to dismiss is granted. And because the deficiency in Roths complaint implicates the core of his legal theory, that dismissal is with prejudice. See Olagues v. Icahn, No. 15 Civ. 898 (GHW), 2016 WL 1178777, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2016) (dismissing a Section 16(b) claim without leave to amend where any attempt to replead the claims on the theoretical basis asserted by Plaintiff would be futile (citing Advanced Magnetics, Inc. v. Bayfront Partners, Inc., 106 F.3d 11, 18 (2d Cir. 1997))). Judgment in favor of Defendants LALFP and LALFC and Nominal Defendant Este Lauder and the case is closed. Dated: New York, New York September 10, 2024

DANIEL ORTIZ Acting Clerk of Court BY: ( Dube “Deputy Clerk