Speyer v. Decicco Family Markets, Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-06478
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Speyer v. Decicco Family Markets, Judge Halpern granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice because amendment would be futile.
Joseph Speyer’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice, ending his case against Decicco Family Markets, Inc., and the other defendants.
What happened
In Speyer v. Decicco Family Markets, Inc., et al., the defendants asked the court to dismiss Joseph Speyer’s complaint. The judgment states that the motion was granted.
The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, meaning the case could not be reopened through an amended complaint. It said amendment would be futile and closed the case.
Judge Philip Halpern issued the underlying ruling referenced by the judgment on January 11, 2021. The provided text does not explain the claims or why amendment would be futile.
The detailed version
- Speyer v. Decicco Family Markets, Inc. · No. 7:20-cv-06478
- Philip Halpern
- Jan. 11, 2021
Background
Joseph Speyer sued Decicco Family Markets, Inc., and other defendants. The judgment refers to Speyer’s complaint as a pro se complaint, meaning it was filed without a lawyer. The provided text does not describe the claims or the events underlying the lawsuit.
Ruling
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. It stated that the complaint was dismissed with prejudice because any amendment would be futile. The case was therefore closed.
Effect
The judgment ends the case in the district court and does not allow Speyer to continue by amending the complaint. The provided text does not state the specific legal grounds for dismissal beyond the court’s conclusion that amendment would be futile. Judge Philip Halpern is identified as the judge for the case; the judgment itself is signed by the court clerk.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.