United States of America ex.rel. Akiva Tessler v. The City of New York
| United States of America ex rel, Felix Gonzalez and Akiva Tessler |
| The City Of New York , |
| 1:2014cv06455 |
| August 13, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 31 U.S.C. ยง 3729 |
| 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
65
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re: 50 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint,. filed by The City Of New York. For the foregoing reasons, the City's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed in i ts entirety. The only remaining question is whether Relators should be granted leave to amend the Second Amended Complaint. Although leave to amend a complaint should be freely given "when justice so requires," Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), it is "within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to amend," McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir. 2007). Here, Relators do not request leave to amend, and the Court declines to grant them leave to amend sua sponte. First, a district court may deny leave to amend where amendment would be futile. See, e.g., Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). Given the Court's reasoning here, there is nothing to suggest that Relat ors would be able to state a valid claim should the Court grant them leave to amend in this case. See, e.g., Ruffolo v. Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d 129, 131 (2d Cir. 1993) ("Where it appears that granting leave to amend is unlikely to be product ive... it is not an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend."). Second, Relators were previously granted leave to amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies raised in the City's first motion to dismiss and expressly warned that they w ould "not be given any further opportunity" to do so. (Docket No. 37). Finally, as noted, Relators have not "requested permission to file a [Third] Amended Complaint" or "given any indication that [they are] in possession of facts that would cure the problems" identified above. Clark v. Kitt, No. 12CV8061 (CS), 2014 WL 4054284, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.15, 2014). As Relators' "failure to fix deficiencies in [their] previous pleadings is alone sufficient ground to deny leave to amend sua sponte," the Court declines to grant such leave here. Transeo S.A.R.L. v. Bessemer Venture Partners VI L.P., 936 F. Supp. 2d 376, 415 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 50 and to close the case. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/16/2016) (cla)
|
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.
