Whyble v. The Nature's Bounty Co.

S.D. New York

Whyble v. The Nature's Bounty Co.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided March 31, 2025·No. 7:20-cv-03257·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK won eK CAROL WHYBLE, ANTHONY BROWN, REBECCA CARRANZA, SUE DEMELE, SHERRY GREENE, RENEE RANDALL, BRENDA TUCKER, and CHARLES GEOFFREY WOODS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- 20 CIVIL 3257 (NSR) JUDGMENT THE NATURE’S BOUNTY CoO., Defendants. won ee KX It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion & Order dated March 31, 2025, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Second Circuit has counseled courts not to dismiss a complaint with prejudice prior to issuing a ruling that highlights the "precise defects" of those claims. Williams v. Citigroup Inc., 659 F.3d 208, 214 (2d Cir. 2011) (per curiam). Because the Court previously identified the precise defects contained in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, and those defects remain uncured, Plaintiffs’ claims are now dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the case is closed. Dated: New York, New York March 31, 2025

TAMMI M HELLWIG Clerk of Court

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 won eK CAROL WHYBLE, ANTHONY BROWN, REBECCA CARRANZA, SUE DEMELE, SHERRY GREENE, RENEE RANDALL, BRENDA TUCKER, and CHARLES GEOFFREY WOODS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- 20 CIVIL 3257 (NSR) JUDGMENT THE NATURE’S BOUNTY CoO., Defendants. won ee KX It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion & Order dated March 31, 2025, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Second Circuit has counseled courts not to dismiss a complaint with prejudice prior to issuing a ruling that highlights the "precise defects" of those claims. Williams v. Citigroup Inc., 659 F.3d 208, 214 (2d Cir. 2011) (per curiam). Because the Court previously identified the precise defects contained in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, and those defects remain uncured, Plaintiffs’ claims are now dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the case is closed. Dated: New York, New York March 31, 2025

TAMMI M HELLWIG Clerk of Court

Deputy Clerk

Whyble v. The Nature's Bounty Co., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Whyble v. The Nature's Bounty Co. (Whyble v. The Nature's Bounty Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related