Pease v. New York City Police Department
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-07693
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pease v. City of New York, Judge Failla granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, ending federal claims with prejudice and remaining claims without prejudice.
Raine Pease, the City of New York, and Deodat Urprasad. Pease’s federal claims were dismissed with prejudice; the remaining NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Pease v. New York City Police Department, the defendants moved to dismiss Raine Pease’s second amended complaint. Pease also briefly asked for permission to amend again.
The court granted the motion to dismiss in full. It declined to allow another amendment because Pease had already amended twice with help from counsel and had been warned about the expected grounds for dismissal.
The court dismissed Pease’s federal claims under Title VII and Section 1983 with prejudice. It dismissed the remaining claims identified as NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims without prejudice, declined to decide those claims under supplemental jurisdiction, and closed the case. Judge Failla is identified in the supplied case information.
The detailed version
- Pease v. New York City Police Department · No. 1:19-cv-07693
- Katherine Failla
- June 29, 2021
Background
The judgment concerns Raine Pease’s second amended complaint against the City of New York and Deodat Urprasad. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The judgment states that the court’s reasons appeared in an Opinion and Order dated June 28, 2021, but that opinion is not included in the provided text.
In opposing the motion, Pease briefly requested permission to amend the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The court declined that request. It stated that Pease had already been given two opportunities to amend with the assistance of counsel and that the anticipated grounds for the defendants’ motion had been discussed at a June 18, 2020 conference.
Ruling
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in full. It dismissed Pease’s federal claims under Title VII and Section 1983 with prejudice, meaning those claims could not be refiled in this case. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related nonfederal claims—over the remaining claims identified as NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims, and dismissed those claims without prejudice. The judgment states that the case was closed.
Effect
The judgment ended the case in the district court. The Title VII and Section 1983 claims were dismissed with prejudice, while the remaining NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims were dismissed without prejudice. The court did not grant Pease’s request for another opportunity to amend.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.