Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 14, 2025

Antoinette de Truff v. 117 West 141 DE LLC

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-07910
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Motion to DismissCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In de Truff v. 117 West 141 DE LLC, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint after de Truff failed to file an amended complaint.

Who this affects

Martina Antoinette de Truff’s case was dismissed after she did not file an amended complaint. The defendants named in the caption were 117 West 141 DE LLC, 117 West 141LLC, Chaim Simkowitz, and Eleanor Patrick. Fee-free status was also denied for any appeal.

What happened

In Martina Antoinette de Truff v. 117 West 141 DE LLC, the court had dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and allowed the plaintiff time to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff requested more time, and the court granted an additional 45 days.

The plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or otherwise contact the court. The court therefore dismissed the complaint under the federal statute governing dismissal of complaints filed without paying court fees. It also denied fee-free status for any appeal and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the case.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the order on May 14, 2025. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Antoinette de Truff v. 117 West 141 DE LLC · No. 1:24-cv-07910
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
May 14, 2025

Background

The court had previously dismissed Plaintiff Martina Antoinette de Truff’s complaint for failure to state a claim and gave her 30 days to file an amended complaint. On January 28, 2025, Plaintiff requested additional time. On February 10, 2025, the court granted her another 45 days to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint and did not otherwise communicate with the court. The complaint had been filed without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

Ruling

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires dismissal of a qualifying fee-free complaint that fails to state a claim. The court stated that the dismissal was for the reasons set forth in the January 28, 2025 order. The opinion provided here does not include that earlier order’s full explanation.

The court 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. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the case. The order does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.