Donohue v. Hochul
- James Oetken
- 1:21-cv-08463
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Donohue v. Hochul, Judge Oetken granted the City Defendants’ dismissal motion, dismissed the complaint, and denied a preliminary injunction.
The plaintiffs, the City Defendants, and the other parties named in the complaint were affected. The federal claims cannot be refiled in the same action, while the state-law claims may be refiled in state court.
What happened
In Donohue v. Hochul, the plaintiffs brought a complaint against Kathleen Hochul and other defendants. The City Defendants moved to dismiss, and the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction.
The court granted the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. It dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and the state-law claims without prejudice to refiling in state court. The court also denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and closed the case.
Judge James Oetken’s February 23, 2022 Opinion and Order was the basis for these dispositions. The judgment states that amendment would be futile because the complaint’s defects were substantive.
The detailed version
- Donohue v. Hochul · No. 1:21-cv-08463
- James Oetken
- Feb. 23, 2022
Background
Patrick Donohue and other plaintiffs filed a complaint against Kathleen Hochul and other defendants. The City Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs also moved for a preliminary injunction, which is a court order sought before final judgment to require or prohibit specified conduct.
Rulings
The court granted the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. It stated that the complaint’s defects were substantive and that amendment would be futile.
The federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning the judgment bars refiling those claims in the same action. The state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
Disposition
The case was closed. The judgment states that these actions were taken for the reasons given in the court’s Opinion and Order dated February 23, 2022; that underlying Opinion and Order is not included in the provided text.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.