Leib-Podry v. Gates III
- James Oetken
- 1:24-cv-08510
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Leib-Podry v. Gates III, Judge Oetken granted the defendant’s dismissal motion, denied amendment, and denied other motions as moot.
The plaintiff’s claims were dismissed, the plaintiff’s motion to amend was denied, and the case was closed. The defendant prevailed on the motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Leib-Podry v. Gates III, the court entered judgment after referring to an opinion and order dated June 30, 2025. The supplied judgment does not describe the claims or the reasons for the rulings.
The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend. It also denied as moot the plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment and to compel mediation and stay the case.
Judge Oetken’s court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiff permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The case was closed.
The detailed version
- Leib-Podry v. Gates III · No. 1:24-cv-08510
- James Oetken
- June 30, 2025
Background
The judgment identifies a plaintiff and William Henry Gates III as the defendant. It states that the court’s reasons appear in an opinion and order dated June 30, 2025, but that opinion and order was not included in the supplied text. As a result, the claims and the basis for the dismissal cannot be determined from this judgment alone.
Rulings
The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. It denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend. It denied as moot the plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment and to compel mediation and stay the case. “Moot” means the court treated those motions as no longer requiring a decision after the dismissal ruling.
Appeal and Case Status
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiff permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The judgment states that the case was closed. It does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.