Select Research Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-06419
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
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.
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
- Select Research Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. · No. 1:24-cv-06419
- Jesse Furman
- 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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.