Franza v. Stanford
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:18-cv-10892
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Franza v. Stanford, Judge Karas granted Defendants’ motion, dismissed the case with prejudice, and closed the case based on immunity and the lack of clearly established law.
The ruling affected Dominic M. Franza and the defendants, including Tina M. Stanford, by dismissing the case with prejudice and closing it.
What happened
Franza v. Stanford involved Plaintiff Dominic M. Franza’s case against Tina M. Stanford and other defendants. The judgment states that the defendants’ motion was granted.
The judgment says the dismissal rested on legal conclusions about absolute immunity and the absence of clearly established law. It also says that changing the complaint again would be futile because Franza had already amended it twice.
The case was dismissed with prejudice and closed. The judgment identifies Kenneth Karas as the judge for the case.
The detailed version
- Franza v. Stanford · No. 7:18-cv-10892
- Kenneth Karas
- Dec. 11, 2019
Background
The provided document is a judgment in a case brought by Dominic M. Franza against Tina M. Stanford and other defendants. It states that the defendants’ motion was granted for the reasons given in the Court’s Opinion and Order dated December 11, 2019.
The judgment does not identify the type of motion, the claims asserted, or the specific actions attributed to each defendant.
Court’s stated reasons
The judgment says the dismissal was based on legal conclusions concerning the applicability of absolute immunity and the absence of clearly established law. It further states that allowing another amendment would be futile because Franza had already amended his complaint twice.
Disposition
The defendants’ motion was granted. The dismissal was with prejudice, and the case was closed. The judgment identifies Kenneth Karas as the judge for the case.
Limits of the provided text
The underlying Opinion and Order is not included, so the document does not provide the court’s full analysis or explain which claims and defendants were covered by each immunity ruling.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.