Febrianti v. Starwood WorldWide
| Erica Febrianti |
| Starwood WorldWide, Tatyana Gritt, Vincent Leo Phanion and Ernest Semexant |
| 1:2015cv00635 |
| January 28, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Queens |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
45
OPINION AND ORDER re: 33 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction the Second Amended Complaint filed by Tatyana Gritt, Vincent Jeophanion, Ernest Semexant, Starwood Wo rldWide: For the reasons stated above, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the Complaint is dismissed in its entirety. The only remaining question is whether Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend her Complaint. Although lea ve to amend a complaint should be freely given "when justice so requires," Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), and courts should generally grant pro se plaintiffs leave to amend "at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated," Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted), it is "within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny le ave to amend," McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir. 2007). Here, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend. First, a district court may deny leave to amend when, as here, amendment would be futile because the problem with the claim "is substantive [and] better pleading will not cure it." Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). Second, Plaintiff has already amended her complaint twice - once soon after filing (see Docket No. 3) and once when she was granted leave to amend to cure deficiencies raised in Defendant's first motion to dismiss, and was explicitly cautioned that she "w[ould] not be given any further opportunity to amend the complaint to address iss ues raised by the motion." (See Docket No. 23). (Notably, Plaintiff's amended complaint - nearly seventy pages of largely speculative ramblings - is even less illuminating than her initial two complaints. (Compare Docket Nos. 2, 3, and 28).) Moreover, Plaintiff has had numerous opportunities to allege facts in support of her claims - in the two revisions to her original Complaint here, not to mention in her complaints and rebuttal statements in the DHR proceedings - but the al legations have changed markedly little. (See Reply Mem. Law Further Supp. Mot. To Dismiss (Docket No. 44) 2-3, 18-20; Docket Nos. 2, 3, 28; SAC, Ex. 1, at 27-30; SAC, Ex. 3, at 1-2). Finally, although Plaintiff appears to ask for leave to amend ( see, e.g., Docket No. 41 at 6, 8, 10), she has not "given any indication that [s]he is in possession of facts that would cure the problems identified in this opinion." Clark v. Kitt, No. 12-CV-8061 (CS), 2014 WL 4054284, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2014). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 33, to mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to Plaintiff, and to close the case. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/8/2016) (tn)
|
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
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
