Cox v. The City of New Rochelle et al
| Robert A. Cox |
| The City of New Rochelle, William Odell, Rocco Oppedisano, Robert Boyko, Elizabeth Sofroniou, Vincent A. Cuccia, Bianca R Darmino, Anthony Vukel, Vincent Quiao, Christopher Fazio, John Doe 1-20 and Grant O' Donnell |
| 7:2017cv08193 |
| October 24, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Kenneth M. Karas |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
169
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 127 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by Joseph Schaller, Christopher Hearle, Robert Boyko, The City of New Rochelle, Patrick Carroll, Gregory Herring, Jose Pena, Rocco Oppedisano, Claudio Carpano, William Odell, 142 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. filed by Vincent A. Cuccia, 132 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. filed by Elizabeth Sofroniou, 134 MOTION to Dismiss . fi led by Grant O' Donnell, 120 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint. filed by Bianca R Darmino. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motions. Additionally, Plaintiff cannot be given an opportunity to file a Third Amended Compl aint, as any amendment to a complaint would be futile. Accordingly, leave to replead is denied. Chunn v. Amtrak, 916 F.3d 204, 208 (2d Cir. 2019). Plaintiff's § 1983 claims are time-barred and therefore any amendment would be futile. Furthermore, Plaintiff has already been given multiple opportunities to amend his pleading, including his conspiracy claim, and has not cured the identified pleading deficiencies. Separately, where a plaintiff has been given notice of defi ciencies in his pleading and has "failed to take advantage of his opportunities to cure or attempt to cure them," leave to replead is likewise properly denied. Elgalad v. New York City Dep't of Educ., No. 17-CV-4849, 2019 WL 4 805669, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019). Finally, as to the Unserved Defendants, while Rule 4(m) permits a court to dismiss claims against unserved defendants without prejudice where, as here, "[t]he same grounds for dismissal of the [ser ved Defendants]... warrant[s] dismissal of the [SAC] as to the Unserved Defendants" dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. Cartwright v. D'Alleva, No. 17-CV-5953, 2018 WL 9343524, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2018), aff'd, 782 F. Ap p'x 77 (2d Cir. 2019). Thus, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. The Clerk is instructed to terminate the pending motions (Docs. 120, 127, 132, 134, 142), and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Philip M. Halpern on 9/28/2020) (ks)
|
|
Filing
103
OPINION & ORDER re: 36 AMENDED MOTION to Dismiss filed by Rocco Oppedisano, Robert Boyko, The City of New Rochelle, William Odell, 33 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Rocco Oppedisano, Robert Boyko, The City of New R ochelle, William Odell, 64 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12 (b) (6) filed by Vincent A. Cuccia, 56 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss filed by Elizabeth Sofroniou, 38 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Grant O� 39; Donnell, 51 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss amended complaint filed by Bianca R Darmino. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motions To Dismiss are granted. The Amended Complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Dismissal is without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint with the Court within 30 days of the date of this Opinion. Plaintiff should include within that second amended complaint all changes to correct the deficiencies identified in this Opinion that Plaintiff wishes the Court to consider. Plaintiff should also consider addressing those deficiencies argued by Defendants but not considered by the Court. Plaintiff is further advised that the second amended complaint will comp letely replace, not supplement, the instant Amended Complaint. The second amended complaint must contain all of the claims, defendants, and factual allegations that Plaintiff wishes the Court to consider. If Plaintiff fails to abide by the 30 -day deadline, dismissal may be with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to terminate the pending Motions, (Dkt. Nos. 33, 36, 38, 51, 56, 64), and to mail a copy of this Opinion to Plaintiff. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 8/10/2019) (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.
