Torres v. City Of New York
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-10210
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Torres v. City of New York, Judge Cronan granted dismissal, ending federal claims with prejudice and state claims without prejudice.
Jaime Torres and Rakesh Kalra’s federal constitutional claims were dismissed with prejudice, and their state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice; the City of New York and the other defendants prevailed on the motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Torres v. City of New York, Jaime Torres and Rakesh Kalra sued the City of New York and other defendants. The judgment states that they claimed violations of federal constitutional rights and also brought state-law claims.
The court said the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the defendants violated their federal constitutional rights. It also declined to decide the remaining state-law claims.
Judge Cronan granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, while the state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the case was closed.
The detailed version
- Torres v. City Of New York · No. 1:20-cv-10210
- John Cronan
- Mar. 11, 2022
Background
Jaime Torres and Rakesh Kalra sued the City of New York, acting through the New York City Police Department and New York City Department of Finance, and other defendants. They sued individually and on behalf of all others. The judgment refers to federal constitutional claims and remaining state-law claims.
Ruling
The judgment states that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the defendants violated their federal constitutional rights. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning it declined to decide the remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and the state-law claims without prejudice. The judgment explains that the federal claims were dismissed with prejudice because the plaintiffs had not suggested how they could fix the defects and had not asked for permission to amend. The case was closed.
Disposition
The federal claims were dismissed with prejudice. The state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice. The judgment does not include the separate Opinion and Order dated March 11, 2022, so the summary is limited to the reasons and dispositions stated in the judgment.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.