Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 5, 2025

Creative Photographers, Inc. v. Grupo Televisa S.A.B.

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:23-cv-07106
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Creative Photographers v. Grupo Televisa, Judge Liman dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction and closed it.

Who this affects

Creative Photographers, Inc.’s second amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed. Grupo Televisa, S.A.B. obtained dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction.

What happened

The judgment in Creative Photographers, Inc. v. Grupo Televisa, S.A.B. concerns the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s second amended complaint. The judgment does not provide the underlying facts or claims.

The court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because the plaintiff had multiple opportunities to amend and another amendment would be futile, the court dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice and closed the case.

Judge Liman is identified as the judge. The judgment was entered on February 5, 2025.

The detailed version

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

Case
Creative Photographers, Inc. v. Grupo Televisa S.A.B. · No. 1:23-cv-07106
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Feb. 5, 2025

Ruling

The court granted Grupo Televisa, S.A.B.’s motion to dismiss Creative Photographers, Inc.’s second amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is the court’s authority to exercise power over the defendant in the case.

The court stated that the plaintiff had multiple opportunities to amend its complaint and that any further amendment would be futile. It therefore dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, meaning the complaint cannot be refiled in its current form, and ordered that the case be closed.

Scope of the Judgment

The provided text is a judgment that refers to a separate opinion and order dated February 4, 2025. It does not explain the underlying claims, the parties’ arguments, or the court’s reasoning concerning personal jurisdiction.

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.