Alameda v. Association of Social Work Boards
Tara Alameda, Kameca Balan, and Debbie Hamell-Palmer, each on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Association of Social Work Boards
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:23-cv-06156
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alameda v. Association of Social Work Boards, Judge Karas granted a motion, dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, and closed the case.
The plaintiffs—Tara Alameda, Kameca Balan, and Debbie Hamell-Palmer—and the Association of Social Work Boards were affected. The plaintiffs’ second amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed.
What happened
Tara Alameda, Kameca Balan, and Debbie Hamell-Palmer sued the Association of Social Work Boards for themselves and a proposed class. The judgment refers to the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint and says they had amended their pleading twice, including once after being notified of its deficiencies.
The court granted the motion. It dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice and closed the case. The judgment does not identify the motion or explain the underlying pleading deficiencies.
Judge Kenneth Karas is identified as the judge in the case information provided. The judgment was dated September 26, 2025, and states that the reasons for the ruling were given in an Opinion and Order dated September 25, 2025.
The detailed version
- Alameda v. Association of Social Work Boards · No. 7:23-cv-06156
- Kenneth Karas
- Sept. 26, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs sued the Association of Social Work Boards for themselves and on behalf of a proposed class. The judgment concerns the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, which the judgment calls their “SAC.” It states that the plaintiffs had amended their pleading twice and that one amendment followed notice of deficiencies.
Ruling
The judgment states that, for the reasons in the Court’s Opinion and Order dated September 25, 2025, “the Motion is granted.” It further states that allowing another amendment would give the plaintiffs a “third bite at the apple.” The second amended complaint was therefore dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed.
What the judgment does not say
The provided text does not identify the motion, describe the claims or alleged deficiencies, or provide the reasoning from the September 25 Opinion and Order. Accordingly, this summary cannot state the underlying legal issues or explain the court’s substantive analysis beyond the dismissal and case closure.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.