Cipciao, LLC v. M Chow One, LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-05982
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cipciao, LLC v. M Chow One, LLC, Judge Furman granted both defendants’ motions to dismiss, denied leave to amend, and closed the case.
Cipciao, LLC’s claims against M. Chow One, LLC and Michael Chow were dismissed, and judgment was entered for the defendants.
What happened
Cipciao, LLC v. M Chow One, LLC ended with judgment for M. Chow One, LLC and Michael Chow after both defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted in full. The case was closed.
The judgment states that the court did not reach the defendants’ alternative arguments for dismissal. Cipciao had previously been given an opportunity to amend its complaint but did not do so, and the court declined to give it another opportunity because Cipciao had not requested one or identified additional facts that could fix the problems in its claims.
Judge Jesse Furman’s court entered judgment for the defendants and declined to grant Cipciao permission to amend the complaint on its own. The provided text does not explain the underlying defects in Cipciao’s claims because those reasons were stated in a separate March 24, 2021 order.
The detailed version
- Cipciao, LLC v. M Chow One, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-05982
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 25, 2021
Background
Cipciao, LLC sued M. Chow One, LLC and Michael Chow. The defendants each filed a motion to dismiss. The judgment refers to the reasons given in the court’s separate order dated March 24, 2021, but that order is not included in the provided text.
Rulings
The court granted both defendants’ motions to dismiss in full. It expressly stated that it did not need to, and did not, reach the defendants’ alternative arguments for dismissal.
The court also declined to grant Cipciao leave to amend its complaint on its own initiative. The judgment explains that Cipciao did not request permission to amend or suggest that it had additional facts that would cure the problems with its claims. Cipciao had previously received permission to amend in response to the defendants’ motions but did not use that opportunity. The court had warned that Cipciao would not receive another opportunity to amend to address the issues raised by the motions.
Disposition
Judgment was entered for the defendants, and the case was closed. The provided judgment does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.