Roberts v. Perez et al
||Mahandra Persaud, Ivonne Santos, Francia Rodriguez, Ramon Perez, Joseph Altman and John and Jane Doe
||August 12, 2013
||New York Southern District Court
||Foley Square Office
||Jesse M. Furman
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
||18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|August 7, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 57 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed by Ivonne Santos, 53 MOTION to Dismiss the amended complaint filed by Mahandra Persaud, 47 MOTION to Dismiss Amende d Complaint filed by Joseph Altman. For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, and the Attorney Defendants' motions are GRANTED. Further, given the lack of subject-matter jurisdictio n, the case must be dismissed as to all Defendants. In light of the Court's holding, the Court does not need to (and, indeed, should not) reach any of Defendants' arguments on the merits. The Court denies Defendant Santos's request for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Santos Mem. 17-23), as Santos failed to comply with the requirement of Rule 11(c)(2) that any motion for sanctions be "made separately from any other motion." See also Williamson v. Recovery Ltd. P'ship, 542 F.3d 43, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2008). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 47, 53, 57 and to close the case. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/7/2014) (mro)
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.