Marcu v. Cheetah Mobile Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-11184
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Marcu v. Cheetah Mobile Inc., Judge Furman granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, dismissed the complaint entirely, and declined to grant leave to amend.
The plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed in its entirety, and the plaintiffs were not granted leave to amend. The defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted.
What happened
In Marcu v. Cheetah Mobile Inc., the defendants asked the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint. The judgment states that the court dismissed the complaint in its entirety for the reasons given in a separate opinion and order dated July 16, 2020.
The plaintiffs did not request permission to file another amended complaint. The court had previously allowed them to amend and warned that they would not receive another opportunity to address the problems raised by the motions to dismiss.
Judge Jesse Furman declined to grant leave to amend and stated that amendment appeared unlikely to cure the problems identified by the court. The case was closed.
The detailed version
- Marcu v. Cheetah Mobile Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-11184
- Jesse Furman
- July 16, 2020
Background
Adrian Marcu and the other plaintiffs sued Cheetah Mobile Inc. and the other defendants. The judgment does not describe the underlying claims in detail. It states that the defendants filed motions to dismiss and that the court’s reasons were set out in an Opinion and Order dated July 16, 2020.
Rulings
The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed in its entirety.
The remaining issue was whether the plaintiffs should receive leave to amend, meaning permission to file another version of the complaint. The court declined to grant leave. It stated that the plaintiffs had not requested leave to amend, that amendment appeared futile in light of the court’s reasoning concerning falsity, and that the plaintiffs had already been given an opportunity to amend and had been warned that they would not receive another opportunity to address issues raised by the motions to dismiss. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had not indicated that they possessed facts that would cure the identified problems.
Disposition
The case was closed. The judgment does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.