Allegrino v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C.
- 7:19-cv-08900
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Allegrino v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., the court granted defendants’ dismissal motions and dismissed the claims with prejudice because amendment would be futile.
The judgment affected plaintiff Anthony J. Allegrino II and the defendants, including the Cohen Defendants. The claims described in the judgment were dismissed, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Allegrino v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., the judgment concerns claims Anthony J. Allegrino II brought against the defendants, including the Cohen Defendants. The judgment does not describe the underlying claims.
The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. It dismissed the claims against the Cohen Defendants and stated that the claims in the Second Amended Complaint were dismissed with prejudice because further amendment would be futile. The case was closed.
The judgment was entered by the court on February 8, 2021. The opinion text does not identify the judge by name.
The detailed version
- Allegrino v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C. · No. 7:19-cv-08900
- Feb. 8, 2021
Background
Anthony J. Allegrino II was the plaintiff, and Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., and other defendants were named in the case. The judgment refers specifically to the “Cohen Defendants,” but the provided text does not identify them individually or describe the claims’ factual or legal basis. It states that the plaintiff had already amended his pleading twice.
Ruling
The court’s judgment states that, for the reasons in a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated February 8, 2021, the plaintiff’s claims against the Cohen Defendants were dismissed. The defendants’ motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) were granted. That rule permits dismissal when a complaint fails to state a legally sufficient claim.
The judgment further states that the claims in the plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint were dismissed against the defendants with prejudice because any further amendment would be futile. “With prejudice” means those claims were not left open for another amendment in this case. The case was closed.
Result and Scope
The provided text is a judgment and does not include the court’s underlying analysis or explain why amendment would be futile. It also does not identify the judge by name; Ruby J. Krajick is identified as the Clerk of Court, and K. Mango as the Deputy Clerk.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.