Rajapakse v. Shaw
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-10473
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Rajapakse v. Shaw, Judge Caproni granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed the claims with prejudice, denied amendment, and barred related new suits.
Samantha D. Rajapakse’s claims against Seyfarth Shaw, Robert Szyba, and Carla Lanigan were dismissed with prejudice; she was denied permission to file a second amended complaint and barred from filing related new civil actions in the court.
What happened
In Rajapakse v. Shaw, the court adopted a report and recommendation in full and entered judgment against Samantha D. Rajapakse’s claims against Seyfarth Shaw, Robert Szyba, and Carla Lanigan.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Rajapakse’s claims with prejudice. It denied permission to file a second amended complaint and barred her from filing new civil actions in that court related to the defendants’ representation of Equifax in an earlier case.
Judge Valerie Caproni’s order also stated that Rajapakse’s failure to object to the report and recommendation prevented appellate review. The court therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Rajapakse v. Shaw · No. 1:20-cv-10473
- Valerie Caproni
- Mar. 23, 2022
Disposition
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the Court’s March 23, 2022 Order, the report and recommendation (a magistrate judge’s recommended decision) was adopted in full. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted, and Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they could not be refiled. The court also denied Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.
Filing restriction
The judgment enjoined Plaintiff from filing any new civil actions in the Southern District of New York related to the defendants’ representation of Equifax in the earlier case identified in the judgment as Rajapakse v. Equifax Information, LLC, No. 20-CV-00080 (N.D. Ga. July 26, 2021).
Appeal and case closure
The judgment states that the report and recommendation gave the parties adequate warning that failing to object would prevent appellate review. Because no objections were filed, the court said appellate review of the decision was waived. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee. The case was closed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.