Tapinekis v. Pace University
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-03210
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Tapinekis v. Pace University: Judge Furman entered judgment dismissing Tapinekis’s claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and closing the case.
Elizabeth Tapinekis’s claims against Pace University were dismissed, and the case was closed. The judgment does not state what effect the ruling had on any proposed similarly situated group.
What happened
In Tapinekis v. Pace University, the judgment states that Elizabeth Tapinekis’s claims were dismissed because the federal court lacked authority to hear them. The judgment refers to the court’s memorandum opinion dated April 11, 2022, but that opinion is not included here.
The judgment says Tapinekis had already amended the complaint twice and could not show that another amendment would avoid dismissal. It therefore states that the case is closed.
Judge Furman’s ruling disposed of the case on a jurisdictional ground rather than deciding the underlying claims. The judgment’s text appears to omit whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Tapinekis v. Pace University · No. 1:20-cv-03210
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 12, 2022
Ruling
The court entered judgment stating that Elizabeth Tapinekis’s claims against Pace University “must be and are dismissed prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” Subject-matter jurisdiction is a federal court’s legal authority to hear a type of dispute. The judgment cites the court’s memorandum opinion and order dated April 11, 2022, but that memorandum is not provided in the text supplied here.
Amendment and Case Closure
The judgment states that although permission to amend a complaint is generally allowed when fairness requires, the court may decide whether to grant or deny that permission. It says Tapinekis had already amended the complaint twice and was unable to show that she could amend it again in a way that would survive dismissal. The judgment therefore states that the case is closed.
Disposition and Classification
The court’s action was a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, followed by closure of the case. The judgment’s wording appears incomplete because it says the claims were dismissed “prejudice” without stating whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. That qualifier is not supplied here and should not be inferred. Because the court disposed of the matter on a jurisdictional ground without deciding the underlying claims, this is a procedural order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.