JRLDDS, LLC v. The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-09487
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In JRLDDS v. Hartford, Judge Furman granted Defendants’ motion, dismissed the amended complaint entirely, and declined further amendment.
JRLDDS, LLC and Defendants The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. and Trumbull Insurance Company; the judgment closed the case.
What happened
JRLDDS, LLC sued The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. and Trumbull Insurance Company. The judgment refers to reasons explained in a July 29, 2022 memorandum opinion and order, but this text does not describe the underlying claims.
The court granted Defendants’ motion and dismissed JRLDDS’s amended complaint in its entirety. It declined to allow another amended complaint, stating that the problems were substantive, amendment would be futile, and JRLDDS had not identified facts that would fix them. Judgment was entered for Defendants, and the case was closed.
Judge Jesse Furman issued the underlying memorandum opinion and order referenced by the judgment. The judgment is dated July 29, 2022.
The detailed version
- JRLDDS, LLC v. The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-09487
- Jesse Furman
- July 29, 2022
Disposition
The court granted Defendants’ motion and dismissed JRLDDS, LLC’s amended complaint in its entirety. The court declined to grant leave to file another amended complaint. Judgment was entered in favor of Defendants, and the case was closed.
Leave to Amend
The judgment states that the problems with JRLDDS’s claims were substantive, making amendment futile. It also states that JRLDDS did not suggest it possessed facts that would cure the problems. In addition, the court had previously allowed JRLDDS to amend its original complaint in response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and had expressly warned that JRLDDS would not receive another opportunity to address issues raised by that motion.
Scope of the Provided Text
The judgment incorporates the reasons stated in the court’s memorandum opinion and order dated July 29, 2022, but the provided text does not identify the underlying causes of action or explain the substantive problems with the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.