DeRaffele v. City of New Rochelle et al
| John DeRaffele |
| City of New Rochelle, Paul Vacca, Charles Strome, Douglas Kelly, Daniel Whittemore, Louis Chipper Perone, James Generoso, Brian Murphy, Susan Kettner and Benny Giles |
| 7:2015cv00282 |
| January 15, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Westchester |
| Kenneth M. Karas |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| 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
79
OPINION & ORDER re: 60 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by City of New Rochelle. In light of the foregoing analysis, the Court grants Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Because Plaintiff has already amended his Complaint in response to a decision on the merits of his claims, but has still failed to state a claim, the Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. See Denny v. Barber, 576 F.2d 465, 471 (2d Cir. 1978) (holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to "a third go-around"); Melvin v. County of Westchester, No. l4-CV-2995, 2016 WL 1254394, at *24 n.19 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2016) (granting motion to dismiss with prejudice where "[the] [p]laintiff has already had two bites at the apple, and they have provenfruitless" (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the pending Motion, (see Dkt. No. 60), and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 6/13/2017) (anc)
|
|
Filing
46
OPINION & ORDER re: 32 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Susan Kettner, James Generoso, 35 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Benny Giles, Brian Murphy, Louis Chipper Perone, Douglas Kelly, Charles Strome, City of New Rochelle , Paul Vacca, Daniel Whittemore. For the reasons stated above, State Defendants' Motion To Dismiss and City Defendants' Motion To Dismiss are granted, without prejudice. Should Plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, he must do so within 30 days of this Order, addressing the deficiencies outlined herein. He is advised that an amended complaint replaces the Complaint currently pending before the Court in its entirety and therefore must include all of his claims and factual alle gations against all Defendants against whom he wishes to proceed. The amended complaint must be captioned "First Amended Complaint" and bear the same docket number as this Order. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the pending Motions. (Dkt. Nos. 32, 35.) SO ORDERED. SO ORDERED. (mml)
|
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.
