Union Square Supply, Inc. v. De Blasio et al
Filing
39
CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 38 Memorandum & Opinion, in favor of City of New York, New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, Office of Administrative Trials & Hearings, Bill De Blasio, Inspector Davi, Joni Kletter, Lorelai Salas against Union Square Supply, Inc. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated November 16, 2021, The City's motion to dismiss is granted. Because Union Square Supply has ha d an opportunity to amend its complaint in response to the City's motion to dismiss, has failed to address the complaint's deficiencies, and has not requested further leave to amend, the dismissal of Union Square Supply's federal claim s is with prejudice. See TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports, Inc., 758 F.3d 493, 505-06 (2d Cir. 2014). The state law claims are dismissed without prejudice to renewal in state court. Judgment is entered for the defendants and this case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 11/17/2021) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal) (dt)
Case 1:21-cv-02390-DLC Document 39 Filed 11/17/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------X
UNION SQUARE SUPPLY INC., individually
and on behalf of a class of all other persons
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO, CITY OF NEW YORK,
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER
AND WORKER PROTECTION, LORELAI SALAS,
as Commissioner of the New York City
Department of Consumer and Worker
Protection, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIALS & HEARINGS, JONI KLETTER, as
Commissioner and Chief Administrative Law
Judge of the Office of Administrative Trials and
Hearings, INSPECTOR DAVI, and INSPECTOR
JOHN DOE(S) AND INSPECTOR JANE DOE(S),
to be identified later,
-against-
21 CIVIL 2390 (DLC)
JUDGMENT
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------X
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons
stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated November 16, 2021, The City’s motion to
dismiss is granted. Because Union Square Supply has had an
opportunity to amend its complaint in response to the City’s
motion to dismiss, has failed to address the complaint’s
deficiencies, and has not requested further leave to amend, the
dismissal of Union Square Supply’s federal claims is with
prejudice. See TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports, Inc., 758 F.3d 493,
505-06 (2d Cir. 2014). The state law claims are dismissed
Case 1:21-cv-02390-DLC Document 39 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 2
without prejudice to renewal in state court. Judgment is entered
for the defendants and this case is closed.
Dated: New York, New York
November 17, 2021
RUBY J. KRAJICK
_________________________
Clerk of Court
BY:
_________________________
Deputy Clerk
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?