Ball v. New York City Council et al
| Madeleine C. Ball |
| New York City Council, Melissa Mark-Viverito, Ramon Martinez and William Alatriste |
| 1:2017cv04828 |
| June 26, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Colleen McMahon |
| Fair Labor Standards Act |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
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
57
OPINION AND ORDER re: 24 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by New York City Council, 51 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by William Alatriste, Ramon Martinez. For the foregoing r easons, Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, the result being that only Ball's FLSA claims against the City Council and Alatriste survive. Although leave to amend a pleading should be freely given &q uot;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), 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 Ci r. 2007). Exercising that discretion here, the Court declines sua sponte to grant Ball leave to amend her Amended Complaint to address the defects in the dismissed claims. First, a district court may deny leave to amend when, as here, amendme nt would be futile because the problems with a plaintiff's claims are "substantive" and "better pleading will not cure" them. Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). Second, Ball was already granted leave t o amend her complaint to cure deficiencies raised in Defendants' first motion to dismiss and was explicitly cautioned that she "w[ould] not be given any further opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss." (Docket No. 17). Finally, Ball "has not requested permission to file a [third amended complaint], nor has [she] given any indication that [she] is in possession of facts that would cure the problems" identif ied in this Opinion and Order. Clark v. Kitt, No. 12-CV-8061 (CS), 2014 WL 4054284, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2014). The City Council and Alatriste shall file answers Ball's FLSA claims within three weeks of this Opinion and Order. The Cler k of Court is directed to terminate Martinez as a party, to terminate Docket Nos. 24 and 51, and to mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to Ball. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/26/2018) (mro) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
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.
