Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 11, 2022

Ormeno v. Relentless Consulting Inc

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:21-cv-01643
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Motion to DismissCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ormeno v. Relentless Consulting, Judge Liman’s court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, closing the case.

Who this affects

Victor Ormeno and the listed defendants—Relentless Consulting Inc.; Juan Toro, individually and doing business as Relentless Agency; W Entertainment; and Juan Luis Moreno Luna—are affected. The defendants obtained dismissal with prejudice, and the case was closed.

What happened

In Ormeno v. Relentless Consulting Inc, the defendants asked the court to dismiss Victor Ormeno’s case. The provided judgment does not describe the claims or the parties’ arguments.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice. It also stated that the case was closed.

Judge Lewis Liman’s January 11, 2022, opinion and order supplied the reasons for the ruling, but that opinion is not included in the provided text.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Ormeno v. Relentless Consulting Inc · No. 1:21-cv-01643
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Jan. 11, 2022

Ruling

The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s opinion and order dated January 11, 2022, the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice generally bars refiling the dismissed claims, and the judgment states that the case was closed.

Parties

The plaintiff is Victor Ormeno, doing business as KH Entertainment. The listed defendants are Relentless Consulting Inc.; Juan Toro, individually and doing business as Relentless Agency; W Entertainment; and Juan Luis Moreno Luna.

Reasoning and limits of the provided text

The judgment cites cases discussing when leave to amend would be futile, including when a revised claim could not survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and when claims are clearly time-barred. It does not state which of those grounds, or any other specific ground, applied here. The referenced opinion and order is not included in the provided text.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.