Harrisman v. The City of New York Depatment of Transportation
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-02986
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Harrisman v. Department of Transportation, Judge Furman granted defendants’ dismissal motions, dismissed the complaint, and denied further amendment.
Jeffrey Harrisman’s federal lawsuit was ended: defendants obtained dismissal, New York City Human Rights Law claims could be refilled in state court, and other claims were dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In Harrisman v. The City of New York Department of Transportation, et al., the court entered judgment based on reasons stated in an earlier opinion and order. The provided judgment does not describe the underlying claims or defendants’ arguments in detail.
The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed Harrisman’s complaint. Claims under the New York City Human Rights Law could be refiled in state court; all other claims were dismissed with prejudice. The court also declined to give Harrisman another opportunity to amend the complaint, denied reduced-fee status for any appeal, and closed the case.
Judge Jesse Furman is identified in the supplied case information. The judgment is dated September 2, 2020, and states that Harrisman had previously been allowed to amend once and had been warned that he would not receive another opportunity.
The detailed version
- Harrisman v. The City of New York Depatment of Transportation · No. 1:19-cv-02986
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 2, 2020
Background
The document is a judgment referring to the court’s Opinion and Order dated September 1, 2020. The judgment itself does not explain the factual allegations, the specific claims, or the arguments supporting defendants’ motions to dismiss.
The judgment states that Harrisman had previously been given permission to amend his complaint. It also states that he did not request another opportunity to amend or identify additional facts that could correct the problems in his claims. According to the judgment, he had been warned that he would not receive another opportunity to amend.
Rulings
The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed Harrisman’s complaint. For claims under the New York City Human Rights Law, the dismissal was without prejudice to refiling in state court. The judgment states that the dismissal was with prejudice for all other claims.
The court declined to grant Harrisman another opportunity to amend the complaint. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied reduced-fee status for an appeal. The case was closed.
Effect
The judgment ended the federal case. New York City Human Rights Law claims were not barred from being filed in state court, while the other dismissed claims were dismissed with prejudice. The provided judgment does not state whether an appeal was filed or what happened in any state-court proceeding.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.