Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 26, 2025

Ramani v. Warner Music Group Corp

Judge
Kimba Wood
Docket
1:24-cv-07445
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Ramani v. Warner Music Group Corp., Judge Wood dismissed the action for lack of federal jurisdiction after Ramani’s repleading failed to show federal-law claims.

Who this affects

Valmiki Ramani’s action against Warner Music Group Corp. was dismissed because the court found no subject matter jurisdiction.

What happened

In Ramani v. Warner Music Group Corp., the court had previously dismissed the action for lack of authority to hear the claims but gave Ramani 30 days to file an amended complaint. The amended filing was titled “Replead.”

The court said the “Replead” did not include facts showing that the claims arose under federal law or that the court could exercise federal jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denied fee-free appeal status, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. Judge Kimba M. Wood also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ramani v. Warner Music Group Corp · No. 1:24-cv-07445
Judge
Kimba Wood
Date
June 26, 2025

Background

In an earlier order dated June 5, 2025, the court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court gave Plaintiff Valmiki Ramani 30 days to file an amended complaint stating facts demonstrating that his claims arose under federal law.

Plaintiff’s Filing

On June 23, 2025, Ramani filed a document titled “Replead.” The court determined that the document did not include facts demonstrating that the court could exercise federal jurisdiction over Ramani’s claims.

Ruling

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(3). The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. As a result, fee-free appeal status was denied for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was instructed to enter judgment. Judge Kimba M. Wood signed the order.

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.