Lavi v. MUFG Bank
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-03167
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Lavi v. MUFG Bank, Judge Oetken granted MUFG Bank’s motion to dismiss, denied leave to amend, and denied fee-free appeal status.
Plaintiff Pierre Lavi and Defendant MUFG Bank were directly affected by the stated rulings. The judgment does not specify the effect on the other named defendants.
What happened
In Lavi v. MUFG Bank, the court ruled on Defendant MUFG Bank’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiff Pierre Lavi’s request for permission to amend his filing.
The court granted MUFG Bank’s motion to dismiss and denied Lavi’s request for leave to amend. The judgment does not state the reasons because it refers to a separate Opinion and Order.
Judge Oetken also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Lavi permission to appeal without paying the filing costs.
The detailed version
- Lavi v. MUFG Bank · No. 1:22-cv-03167
- James Oetken
- Aug. 23, 2024
Rulings
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s separate Opinion and Order dated August 23, 2024, Defendant MUFG Bank’s motion to dismiss was granted. The judgment also states that Plaintiff Pierre Lavi’s request for leave to amend was denied. It does not identify the specific grounds for dismissal or explain why amendment was denied.
Appeal status
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Lavi in forma pauperis status—that is, permission to appeal without paying the required filing costs.
Scope of the available text
The provided text is the judgment, not the referenced Opinion and Order. Accordingly, the legal claims, the court’s reasoning, and the effect of the ruling on any defendants other than MUFG Bank cannot be determined from the provided text.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.