Francis Asifuah v. REUVEN L. COHEN, ESQ
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-05050
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Francis Asifuah v. Reuven L. Cohen, Judge Torres granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied Asifuah’s evidence motion as moot.
Francis Asifuah’s state-law claims against Reuven L. Cohen and Williams Cohen LLP were affected by the dismissal ruling; the defendants obtained dismissal of their motion and Asifuah was not permitted to amend. His motion to file additional evidence was denied as moot.
What happened
Francis Asifuah v. Reuven L. Cohen, Esq. involved claims by Asifuah, who represented himself, against Reuven L. Cohen and Williams Cohen LLP. He alleged fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, malpractice, and civil conspiracy under state law.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the amended complaint under a federal rule requiring a complaint to plausibly state a claim for relief. Asifuah also asked to file additional evidence.
Judge Analisa Torres granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the amended complaint did not plausibly state a claim. The court found that changing the complaint would be futile and would not permit another amendment. It denied Asifuah’s motion to file additional evidence as moot because the court had previously allowed him to file those documents.
The detailed version
- Francis Asifuah v. REUVEN L. COHEN, ESQ · No. 1:20-cv-05050
- Analisa Torres
- Mar. 31, 2022
Background
Francis Asifuah, proceeding without a lawyer, brought the action against Reuven L. Cohen and Williams Cohen LLP. The amended complaint asserted state-law claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, malpractice, and civil conspiracy.
Motions and Ruling
The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court applied the requirement that a complaint contain enough factual matter to make a claim for relief plausible. The court also stated that it had read Asifuah’s submissions liberally and interpreted them to raise the strongest arguments they suggested, as required for a person proceeding without a lawyer.
The court found that Asifuah had failed to state a claim that was plausible on its face. It therefore granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court further found that amendment would be futile and stated that it would not permit amendment.
The court also denied as moot Asifuah’s motion to file additional evidence at ECF No. 47 because the court had previously permitted him to file those additional documents. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 37 and 47 and mail Asifuah a copy of the order. The order stated that the court would later issue a memorandum opinion addressing the defendants’ motion; this order itself does not provide the detailed reasons for rejecting each individual claim.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.