Davis v. City of New York
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-07387
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Davis v. City of New York, Judge Caproni granted defendants’ motion to dismiss after plaintiff failed to oppose it and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
Joshua Davis’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and the case was marked closed. The defendants obtained dismissal of the claims.
What happened
In Davis v. City of New York, the defendants moved to dismiss Joshua Davis’s complaint. Davis, who was represented by counsel, did not respond after the court ordered him to oppose the motion by March 6, 2020, and warned that silence would make the motion unopposed.
The court said Davis had abandoned his claims by failing to address the defendants’ arguments. It also said the claims were independently barred by a general release Davis signed on May 7, 2019, after receiving $9,000. The release covered civil-rights claims arising through that date, including Davis’s claims concerning a May 20, 2017 arrest.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted the motion to dismiss, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, directed the Clerk to close the motion and mark the case closed.
The detailed version
- Davis v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-07387
- Valerie Caproni
- Mar. 10, 2020
Background
The defendants moved to dismiss Joshua Davis’s complaint on January 17, 2020. Davis was represented by counsel. On February 28, 2020, the court ordered him to respond by March 6, 2020, and warned that failure to file an opposition would cause the court to treat the motion as unopposed. The order was electronically sent to Davis’s counsel, but Davis did not file an opposition or otherwise respond.
Reasons for the Ruling
The court held that Davis abandoned his claims by failing to address any of the defendants’ arguments supporting dismissal. The court also stated that the claims were independently barred by a General Release Davis signed on May 7, 2019, in exchange for $9,000. The release covered “all liability, claims, or rights of action alleging a violation of civil rights … that occurred through the date of this release.” Because the complaint concerned an arrest on May 20, 2017, the court concluded that the claims fell within the release’s terms.
Disposition
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at docket entry 19, dismiss the complaint with prejudice, and mark the case closed. The opinion does not identify the specific causes of action in Davis’s complaint beyond describing them as civil-rights claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.