Dogbe v. Delta Airlines, Inc. et al
| Samuel K. Dogbe |
| Port Authority Of New York And New Jersey, Delta Airlines, Inc., Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, John Doe and Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij, N.V. |
| 1:2011cv06289 |
| December 23, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Lois Bloom |
| Kiyo A. Matsumoto |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
41
ORDER granting 36 Motions to Dismiss: For the reasons discussed in the attached Memorandum and Order, Delta's and KLM's Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss are granted in their entirety, and claims Ten through Twenty-Two of plaintiff's Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice. See Wilson v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 671 F.3d 120, 140 (2d Cir. 2011) ("[W]here amendment would be futile, denial of leave to amend is proper."); McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir. 2007) ("[I]t is within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to amend."). Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to dismiss Delta, KLM, and John Doe from this action. Plaintiff and the Port Authority are referred to Magistrate Judge Bloom for the continuation of discovery on plaintiff's remaining claims against the Port Authority, Jane Doe 1, and Jane Doe 2. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 8/27/2013. (Beauchamp, Peter)
|
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 Eastern 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.
