Williams v. Essex
- Philip Halpern
- 7:19-cv-11545
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Williams v. E. Novoa, ORC, Judge Halpern granted dismissal, screened remaining claims, and closed the case.
Andrew Williams, the served defendants, and the unserved defendants. Claims against the served defendants and federal claims against the unserved defendants were dismissed with prejudice; state-law claims against the unserved defendants were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in the proper forum.
What happened
In Williams v. E. Novoa, ORC, Andrew Williams sued E. Novoa, ORC, and others. The judgment distinguishes between defendants who were served and defendants who were not served.
The court granted the served defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). It also dismissed the federal claims against the unserved defendants. State-law claims against the unserved defendants were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in the proper forum.
Judge Philip Halpern’s judgment states that the claims against the served defendants and the federal claims against the unserved defendants were dismissed with prejudice because amendment would be futile. The case was closed.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Essex · No. 7:19-cv-11545
- Philip Halpern
- Jan. 19, 2022
Background
The judgment concerns claims brought by Andrew Williams against E. Novoa, ORC, and other defendants. It refers to defendants who had been served and defendants who had not been served. The judgment states that its rulings were based on the court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 18, 2022; that memorandum is not included in the supplied text.
Rulings
The court granted the served defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses certain jurisdictional defects, and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses failure to state a legally sufficient claim.
The court also dismissed all federal claims against the unserved defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii), provisions allowing dismissal of certain claims filed by a person proceeding without a lawyer. The judgment states that these federal claims were dismissed with prejudice because amendment would be futile.
The court dismissed any state-law claims against the unserved defendants without prejudice to refiling in the proper forum. The judgment separately states that all claims against the served defendants were dismissed with prejudice because amendment would be futile. The case was closed.
Effect of the Judgment
The judgment ended the case in the district court. The served defendants obtained dismissal of all claims against them. The unserved defendants obtained dismissal with prejudice of the federal claims, while the state-law claims against them were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in the proper forum. Judge Philip Halpern is identified in the supplied case information, but the judgment itself is signed by the clerk rather than by the judge.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.