Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 24, 2020

Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 773 Pension Fund v. Danske Bank A/S

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-00235
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Motion to DismissCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 773 Pension Fund v. Danske Bank A/S, Judge Caproni granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and closed the case.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice after the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied leave to amend. The case was closed.

What happened

Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 773 Pension Fund v. Danske Bank A/S involved pension funds suing Danske Bank A/S and several individuals. The judgment does not describe the claims or the parties’ arguments.

The court’s judgment says it relied on reasons stated in a separate August 24, 2020 order. That order is not included in the provided text, so the specific basis for dismissal is unclear.

Judge Caproni granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied the plaintiffs leave to amend, and dismissed the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice. The case was closed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 773 Pension Fund v. Danske Bank A/S · No. 1:19-cv-00235
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Aug. 24, 2020

Background

The plaintiffs were Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 773 Pension Fund, Boston Retirement System, Teamsters Local 237 Additional Security Benefit Fund, and Teamsters Local 237 Supplemental Fund for Housing Authority Employees. They sued Danske Bank A/S and Thomas F. Borgen, Henrik Ramlau-Hansen, Jacob Aarup-Andersen, and Ole Andersen, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.

Ruling

The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s August 24, 2020 order, the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. The provided judgment does not explain the specific legal grounds for that ruling.

The court denied the plaintiffs leave to amend. It stated that the plaintiffs had already had an opportunity to amend once in response to a motion to dismiss and that their arguments did not indicate that the complaint’s defects could be cured. The Third Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.