Clarke v. The Leading Hotels of the World

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Southern District Clarke v. The Leading Hotels of the World

Clarke v. The Leading Hotels of the World

Plaintiff:	Chevaneese Clarke
Defendant:	The Leading Hotels of the World
Case Number:	1:2015cv00008
Filed:	January 5, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	New York
Presiding Judge:	Jesse M. Furman
Nature of Suit:	Employment
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1441
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
October 29, 2015	Filing 24 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 16 MOTION to Dismiss and, Alternatively, for a More Definite Statement filed by Leading Hotels of the World, Ltd.: For the reasons stated above, Defendant's 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 leave 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. B ank, 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 leave to amend," McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir. 2007). Here, the Court declines to grant leave to amend sua sponte. 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 wi ll not cure it." Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). Second, Plaintiff was previously granted leave to amend to cure deficiencies raised in Defendant's first motion for a more definite statement, and was explicitly ca utioned that she "w[ould] not be given any further opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by the motion." (Docket No. 12). Notably, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that is even less illuminating than her init ial complaint. (Compare Docket Nos. 2 and 13). She then failed to respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss, and - when ordered to show cause why the motion should not be treated as unopposed - filed a two-page letter that largely resorts t o ad hominem attacks on Defendant and its counsel. (See June 17, 2015 Ltr. (Docket No. 21)). Finally, Plaintiff "has not requested permission to file a Second Amended Complaint, nor has [s]he given any indication that [s]he is in possessio n 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). This Court certifies, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Memorandum Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith, and in forma pauperis status is thus denied. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 16, to mail a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Plaintiff, and to close the case. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/29/2015) (tn)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 29, 2015

Filing 24 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 16 MOTION to Dismiss and, Alternatively, for a More Definite Statement filed by Leading Hotels of the World, Ltd.: For the reasons stated above, Defendant's 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 leave 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. B ank, 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 leave to amend," McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir. 2007). Here, the Court declines to grant leave to amend sua sponte. 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 wi ll not cure it." Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). Second, Plaintiff was previously granted leave to amend to cure deficiencies raised in Defendant's first motion for a more definite statement, and was explicitly ca utioned that she "w[ould] not be given any further opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by the motion." (Docket No. 12). Notably, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that is even less illuminating than her init ial complaint. (Compare Docket Nos. 2 and 13). She then failed to respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss, and - when ordered to show cause why the motion should not be treated as unopposed - filed a two-page letter that largely resorts t o ad hominem attacks on Defendant and its counsel. (See June 17, 2015 Ltr. (Docket No. 21)). Finally, Plaintiff "has not requested permission to file a Second Amended Complaint, nor has [s]he given any indication that [s]he is in possessio n 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). This Court certifies, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Memorandum Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith, and in forma pauperis status is thus denied. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 16, to mail a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Plaintiff, and to close the case. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/29/2015) (tn)

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

Search for this case: Clarke v. The Leading Hotels of the World
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Chevaneese Clarke
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: The Leading Hotels of the World
Represented By:	Paul Hugo Galligan
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?