Moore v. Stripe, Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:24-cv-02799
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Moore v. Stripe, Judge Oetken granted Stripe’s dismissal motion, dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, and closed the case.
Charisses Moore’s federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and her state-law claims were dismissed; Stripe, Inc.’s motion to dismiss was granted.
What happened
In Moore v. Stripe, the court granted Stripe, Inc.’s motion to dismiss Charisses Moore’s complaint. The judgment states that Moore’s federal claims were dismissed with prejudice under Rules 8(a) and 12(b)(6), and were deemed frivolous under the federal statute governing certain claims filed without prepaying fees.
The judgment also dismisses Moore’s state-law claims, but the supplied text is incomplete where it would specify the exact effect of that dismissal. It warns that future frivolous or duplicative cases could lead to a filing restriction and denies fee-free status for an appeal. The case was closed.
Judge James Oetken was the judge identified for the case. The judgment states that Stripe’s motion to dismiss was granted and that the federal claims were dismissed with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Moore v. Stripe, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-02799
- James Oetken
- Oct. 31, 2024
What the court decided
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s Opinion and Order dated October 30, 2024, Stripe, Inc.’s motion to dismiss was granted.
Federal claims
The judgment states that Charisses Moore’s federal claims were dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6). Rule 8(a) concerns the basic requirements for a complaint, and Rule 12(b)(6) allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The judgment also states that the federal claims were considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
State-law claims
The judgment states that Moore’s state-law claims were dismissed and refers to refiling in state court. However, the supplied text is incomplete at the point that would state the exact legal effect of that dismissal. The record provided therefore does not permit a more precise description of whether the state-law dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Other provisions
The court warned Moore that if she filed future actions in the court that were frivolous or duplicative, it could bar her from filing new actions without prepaying the filing fee unless she first obtained the court’s permission. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The case was closed.
Result
The motion to dismiss was granted; the federal claims were dismissed with prejudice; the state-law claims were dismissed with an incomplete description of the precise refiling effect; and the case was closed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.