Segarra v. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York et al
Carmen M. Segarra |
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Michael Silva, Michael Koh and Johnathon Kim |
1:2013cv07173 |
October 10, 2013 |
US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
Foley Square Office |
New York |
Ronnie Abrams |
Other Statutory Actions |
12 U.S.C. ยง 1831 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 50 OPINION AND ORDER. The Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Count One fails to state a claim under 12 U.S.C. § 1831j, and the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Pl aintiff's motion seeking leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is denied, as are the other requests made in her April 11, 2014 letters. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the motions pending at docket numbers 33 and 42 and to close the case. Re: 33 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Michael Koh, The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Johnathon Kim, Michael Silva, 42 FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct 24 Amended Complaint, 40 Response in Oppositi on to Motion to Dismiss. FIRST MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct 24 Amended Complaint, 40 Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed by Carmen M. Segarra. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 4/23/2014) (rjm) |
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.