Basia Goszczyńska a/k/a Barbara Fedorowicz v. Arcadia Earth LLC and Informa…
Basia Goszczyńska a/k/a Barbara Fedorowicz v. Arcadia Earth LLC and Informa Markets Fashion (East) LLC
- 1:22-cv-09345
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Basia Goszczyńska v. Arcadia Earth, the court granted dismissal, ending the federal claim and allowing state claims to proceed in state court.
Basia Goszczyńska a/k/a Barbara Fedorowicz’s VARA claim was dismissed with prejudice. Her remaining state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the judgment states that she may pursue them in state court. Arcadia Earth LLC and Informa Markets Fashion (East) LLC obtained dismissal of the motion addressed in the judgment.
What happened
Basia Goszczyńska a/k/a Barbara Fedorowicz sued Arcadia Earth LLC and Informa Markets Fashion (East) LLC. The judgment refers to the court’s separate Opinion and Order dated September 30, 2025, but that opinion is not provided here.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed Goszczyńska’s VARA claim with prejudice, meaning that claim cannot be brought again in the same case. The judgment does not explain the reasons for that dismissal.
The court declined to decide Goszczyńska’s remaining state-law claims under its supplemental jurisdiction, which is authority to hear related state claims in a federal case. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the court stated that she is free to pursue them in state court. The case was closed. The judgment does not identify the judge; the court entered the judgment.
The detailed version
- Basia Goszczyńska a/k/a Barbara Fedorowicz v. Arcadia Earth LLC and Informa… · No. 1:22-cv-09345
- Sept. 30, 2025
Background
Basia Goszczyńska a/k/a Barbara Fedorowicz was the plaintiff, and Arcadia Earth LLC and Informa Markets Fashion (East) LLC were the defendants. The provided document is a judgment. It refers to a separate Opinion and Order dated September 30, 2025, but that opinion is not included, so the factual allegations and reasoning are not available in the provided text.
Ruling
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The judgment states that the plaintiff’s VARA claim was dismissed with prejudice. The judgment does not state the basis for dismissing that claim.
The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims. As a result, those claims were dismissed without prejudice. The judgment states that the plaintiff “is at liberty to pursue these in state court.”
Disposition
The case was closed. The judgment is dated September 30, 2025, and identifies the clerk of court and a deputy clerk, but it does not identify the judge who issued the referenced Opinion and Order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.