May v. Barclays PLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-02583
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In May v. Barclays PLC, Judge Liman granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, and closed the case.
The named plaintiffs and the listed defendants; the judgment also closes this proposed class action.
What happened
May v. Barclays PLC was brought by the named plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Barclays and the other listed defendants. The judgment does not describe the underlying claims.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It said the plaintiffs had not explained what an amended complaint would add or how they would fix the problems, and that those problems appeared substantive rather than merely poor drafting.
The court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice and closed the case. The judgment was entered for the reasons stated in the March 21, 2025 opinion and order by Judge Lewis Liman.
The detailed version
- May v. Barclays PLC · No. 1:23-cv-02583
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 21, 2025
Background
The named plaintiffs—Dr. Ruth C. May, Dr. Donna E. Ledgerwood, Justin Reed, Mark Howarth, and Jeffrey Knapp—brought the case on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The defendants include Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, and the individual defendants listed in the judgment. The provided judgment does not describe the legal claims underlying the case.
Ruling
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice and stated that the case was closed.
Reasoning
The judgment explains that although the federal civil rules generally favor allowing amendments, a district court may deny permission to amend when amendment would be futile. The plaintiffs had not provided the contents of any proposed amendment or explained how they would cure the complaint’s defects. The court concluded that the failure to state a claim appeared to result from substantive problems with the plaintiffs’ claims, rather than merely inartful drafting, making further amendment futile.
Disposition
The amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed. The judgment states that these actions were taken for the reasons given in the court’s opinion and order dated March 21, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.