Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 28, 2024

Collaza v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:23-cv-06030
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Motion to DismissCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Collaza v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., Judge Carter granted the company’s motion to dismiss on preemption grounds, with prejudice.

Who this affects

The judgment affected plaintiff Collaza and defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.; the case was dismissed with prejudice.

What happened

Collaza sued Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. The opinion does not describe the claims or the parties’ arguments.

The court granted the company’s motion to dismiss on preemption grounds. The dismissal was with prejudice because the court found that the problems with Collaza’s claims were substantive and could not be fixed through better pleading.

Judge Andrew Carter issued the ruling referenced in the August 28, 2024 judgment, which ended the case on the terms stated by the court.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Collaza v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06030
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Aug. 28, 2024

Ruling

The court granted Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.’s motion to dismiss on preemption grounds. Preemption means that another law prevents the plaintiff’s claims from proceeding under the legal theories asserted. The judgment does not identify the specific claims, law, or preemption analysis because it incorporates the reasons stated in a separate order dated August 27, 2024.

The court dismissed the case with prejudice. It explained that the problems with Collaza’s causes of action were substantive and that better pleading would not cure them. The judgment was dated August 28, 2024, and was entered by the acting clerk of court.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.