"[A] party may amend its pleadings more than once ‘only with the opposing party's written consent or the courts leave.'" (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2))
How later courts described this case
- "[A] party may amend its pleadings more than once ‘only with the opposing party's written consent or the courts leave.'" (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2))
- "[T]he district court has the discretion to deny leave [to amend] if there is a good reason for it, such as futility..." (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)); see also Knife Rights, Inc. v. Vance, 802 F.3d 377, 389 (2d Cir. 2015
- denying leave to replead, for futility, because defendant was "absolutely immune" from suit
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRUPICA iY PILED
penne. # ee
DOMINIC M. FRANZA, Lo \ \
Plaintiff, ) DATE FILED: [2] □□ i,
-against- □□□ CIVIL 10892 (KMK)
JUDGMENT
TINA M. STANFORD, et al.,
Defendants.
□□□ nee eee ee eee eee eee eee KX
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons
stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated December 11, 2019, Defendants' Motion is granted.
Because this dismissal is based on legal conclusions concerning the applicability of absolute
immunity and the absence of "clearly established law," the Court concludes that amendment would
be futile. See Bogart v. City of New York, No. 13-CV-1017, 2015 WL 5036963, at *8 (S.D.N.Y.
Aug. 26, 2015)(denying leave to amend, for futility, because the defendants did not "def[y] clearly
established law"); Karris v. Varulo, No. 14-CV-1077, 2014 WL 1414483, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Apr.
10, 2014) ("[A]ny amendment to [the] plaintiffs amended complaint would be futile because, inter
alia, all defendants are entitled to absolute immunity... (italics omitted)); Dilacio v. N.Y.C. Dist.
Council of the United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 593 F. Supp. 2d 571, 578 (S.D.NLY.
2008) (denying leave to replead, for futility, because defendant was "absolutely immune" from
suit). Accordingly, and because Plaintiff has already amended his Complaint twice, dismissal is
with prejudice. See Jin v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 84, 101 (2d Cir. 2002) ("[T]he district
court has the discretion to deny leave [to amend] if there is a good reason for it, such as futility..."
(citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)); see also Knife Rights, Inc. v. Vance, 802 F.3d
377, 389 (2d Cir. 2015) ("[A] party may amend its pleadings more than once ‘only with the
opposing party's written consent or the courts leave.'" (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)));
accordingly, the case is closed.
Dated: New York, New York
December 11, 2019
RUBY J. KRAJICK
Clerk of Court
BY:
Deputy na