Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 3, 2025

Select Research Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:24-cv-06419
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Motion to DismissCivil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Select Research Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Judge Furman granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed the complaint entirely, and declined to grant leave to amend.

Who this affects

Select Research Ltd. and Amazon.com, Inc. et al.; the complaint was dismissed in its entirety, judgment was entered for the defendants, and the case was closed.

What happened

In Select Research Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., the defendants asked the court to dismiss Select Research Ltd.’s complaint. The judgment states that the court granted that motion.

The complaint included claims involving trade secrets, ideas, a nondisclosure agreement, fraud, unjust enrichment, interference with business relationships, and conversion. The judgment also states that Select Research had previously received permission to amend its original complaint and had been warned that it would not receive another opportunity to address the same issues.

Judge Furman’s court dismissed the complaint in its entirety, declined to grant Select Research permission to amend again, entered judgment for the defendants, and closed the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Select Research Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. · No. 1:24-cv-06419
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Sept. 3, 2025

Background

Select Research Ltd. sued Amazon.com, Inc. and other defendants. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The judgment states that the court’s decision was based on the reasons in an Opinion and Order dated September 2, 2025.

Claims and amendment history

The judgment refers to dismissed claims for trade-secret and idea misappropriation, breach of NDA 2, fraud, unjust enrichment, tortious interference, and conversion. It states that the court had previously allowed Select Research to amend its original complaint in response to an earlier motion to dismiss. The court had also warned that Select Research would not receive another opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by that motion. The judgment further states that Select Research did not request permission to amend again or identify facts that would cure the pleading problems.

Ruling

The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted, and the complaint was dismissed in its entirety. The court also declined to grant Select Research permission to amend the complaint on its own initiative. The judgment states that problems with many of the dismissed claims were substantive and that amendment would be futile. Judgment was entered for the defendants, and the case was closed.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the complaint on a motion to dismiss, a threshold pleading ruling, rather than an adversarial decision establishing liability on the underlying claims.

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.