Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 13, 2022

Price v. Koenigsmann

Docket
7:19-cv-04068-KMK
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Price v. Koenigsmann, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice and closed the case.

Who this affects

Tyrone Price’s claims against Dr. Carl Koenigsmann and the other defendants were dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed.

What happened

In Price v. Koenigsmann, Tyrone Price sued Dr. Carl Koenigsmann and other defendants. The provided judgment refers to an earlier adjudication of Price’s claims but does not state the underlying facts or legal claims.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It stated that this was the second adjudication of the claims on their merits and that further amendment would be futile, so it dismissed the claims with prejudice and closed the case.

The court entered the judgment on January 13, 2022. The individual judge is not identified in the provided judgment; Ruby J. Krajick is identified as the clerk of court.

The detailed version

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

Case
Price v. Koenigsmann · No. 7:19-cv-04068-KMK
Date
Jan. 13, 2022

Ruling

The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s Opinion and Order dated January 13, 2022, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Effect of the Ruling

The judgment says this was the second adjudication of Price’s claims against the defendants on the merits. It also says that any further amendment would be futile. The court therefore dismissed the claims with prejudice, meaning the judgment bars another attempt to bring those claims in this case. The case was closed.

Limits of the Provided Text

The material provided is the judgment, not the referenced Opinion and Order. It does not explain the underlying claims, the defendants’ arguments, or the court’s reasons for granting dismissal beyond its statements about the second adjudication and futility of amendment. The judgment identifies Ruby J. Krajick as the clerk of court, but does not identify the individual judge.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.