Cooper v. Bonobos, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-00854
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Cooper v. Bonobos: Judge Furman dismissed Cooper’s claims without prejudice for lack of federal jurisdiction because the alleged injury was too uncertain.
Bradley Cooper and the others he sought to represent were affected because their claims against Bonobos, Inc. were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the case was closed.
What happened
In Cooper v. Bonobos, Inc., Bradley Cooper sued Bonobos, Inc. on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The judgment states that Cooper did not allege an injury that was certain to happen or that involved a substantial risk of happening.
The court dismissed Cooper’s claims without prejudice because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the federal court lacked power to decide the case. The court therefore did not address Bonobos’s other arguments.
The judgment also states that Cooper had already amended his pleadings once and had not shown that another amendment could establish a legally sufficient injury. The case was closed. Judge Jesse Furman was the judge identified for the case.
The detailed version
- Cooper v. Bonobos, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-00854
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 19, 2022
Background
Bradley Cooper brought the case against Bonobos, Inc. on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The judgment refers to the reasons stated in the court’s January 19, 2022 Opinion and Order, but the text provided here does not describe the underlying claims in detail.
Jurisdictional issue
The court concluded that Cooper had not alleged an injury that was “certainly impending” or based on a “substantial risk that the harm will occur.” Because of that deficiency, Cooper did not establish the injury required for federal standing. Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient personal injury for a federal court to hear the dispute.
Ruling
The court dismissed Cooper’s claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that it could not address Bonobos’s other arguments because the court lacked jurisdiction. The judgment further stated that Cooper had already amended his pleadings once after Bonobos moved to dismiss and had not shown how another amendment could establish a legally sufficient injury. It characterized any further amendment as futile and stated that the case was closed. Judge Jesse Furman was identified as the judge for the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.