Moore v. KPMG
- James Oetken
- 1:24-cv-05471
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Moore v. KPMG, Judge Oetken granted KPMG’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Moore’s complaint with prejudice as frivolous under the cited statutes.
Charisse S. Moore’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice. KPMG obtained dismissal, the case was closed, and the court denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
What happened
In Moore v. KPMG, the court ruled on KPMG’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint. The judgment does not state the facts or legal claims underlying the complaint, referring instead to an earlier opinion and order.
The court granted KPMG’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice in its entirety under Rule 8(a). It also deemed the complaint frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), closed the case, and denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal.
The judgment identifies James Oetken as the judge. It warns that future frivolous or duplicative filings could lead to a filing restriction for cases brought without paying the filing fee, unless the court grants permission.
The detailed version
- Moore v. KPMG · No. 1:24-cv-05471
- James Oetken
- Oct. 30, 2024
Background
The available text is a judgment that refers to the court’s Opinion and Order dated October 30, 2024. It does not describe the claims, the underlying events, or the parties’ arguments. It states that KPMG filed a motion to dismiss.
Ruling
The court granted KPMG’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice in its entirety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which concerns the required contents of a complaint. The court also deemed the complaint frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The court warned the plaintiff that, if she files future actions in the court that are frivolous or duplicative, it may bar her from filing new actions without paying the filing fee unless she receives the court’s permission. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The case was closed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.