Soto v. Disney Severance Pay Plan
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-04048
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Judge Nathan granted Disney Severance Pay Plan defendants’ motion to dismiss Nancy J. Soto’s case and denied her request to amend.
Nancy J. Soto and the Disney Severance Pay Plan defendants; the defendants obtained dismissal, and Soto was not allowed to amend again.
What happened
Nancy J. Soto sued Disney Severance Pay Plan and other defendants. The judgment refers to an earlier opinion and order dated November 9, 2020, but that opinion is not included here.
Soto asked for permission to amend her complaint if the defendants’ motion succeeded. The judgment states that she had already amended once and had alleged that she did not satisfy one of the Plan’s eligibility requirements.
Judge Nathan’s court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied Soto another opportunity to amend because it would be futile, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Soto v. Disney Severance Pay Plan · No. 1:19-cv-04048
- Alison Nathan
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
Nancy J. Soto brought this case against Disney Severance Pay Plan and other defendants. The judgment states that the court had issued an Opinion and Order dated November 9, 2020, but that underlying opinion is not included in the provided text.
Motions and ruling
The defendants moved to dismiss Soto’s complaint. The court granted that motion. Soto also requested permission to amend her complaint if the motion was granted in whole or in part. The court declined to give her a second opportunity to amend, stating that she had already had one opportunity to amend and that her allegation that she had not satisfied a Plan eligibility requirement made any further amendment futile.
Disposition
The judgment grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denies Soto’s request for another opportunity to amend, and states that the case is closed. The provided judgment does not specify the underlying causes of action or explain the full merits of the dismissal beyond the amendment ruling.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.