King v. City of New York
- Paul Crotty
- 1:20-cv-08283
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In King v. City of New York, Judge Crotty granted defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss after plaintiff did not respond.
Andy King, the City of New York, and the New York City Council.
What happened
Andy King sued the City of New York and the New York City Council. The defendants asked the court to dismiss his complaint on several grounds, including lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
The court had directed King to explain why the motion should not be treated as unopposed by December 17, 2020. The order says he did not respond.
The motion was therefore treated as unopposed and granted. Judge Paul A. Crotty did not state in the supplied text which specific dismissal grounds he adopted or whether the dismissal had any prejudice designation.
The detailed version
- King v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-08283
- Paul Crotty
- Jan. 5, 2021
Background
Andy King brought the case against the City of New York and the New York City Council. The defendants filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the complaint. They cited Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11, 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 65, as well as Article 78 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules. Their stated grounds included an alleged violation of Rule 11, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over part of the complaint, and failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted.
Response to the Motion
The supplied text states that, on December 7, the court directed King to show cause by December 17, 2020, why the defendants’ motion should not be treated as unopposed. King did not respond. The order therefore deemed the motion unopposed.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to dismiss because it was unopposed. Judge Paul A. Crotty’s order, as provided, does not identify which of the defendants’ stated grounds supported the ruling, and it does not say that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The text also does not include a separate merits analysis.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.