Murphy v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-10322-JPO
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Murphy v. Ruth’s Hospitality Group, Judge Oetken granted dismissal and dismissed the action for lack of standing.
James Murphy and Ruth’s Hospitality Group, Inc.; the case was closed.
What happened
In Murphy v. Ruth’s Hospitality Group, Inc., the defendant moved to dismiss the action. The opinion gives no additional facts about the dispute.
The court relied on the Second Circuit’s decision in Calcano v. Swarovski North America Ltd. and found that the plaintiff lacked standing, meaning he was not legally entitled to pursue the action in federal court.
Judge Oetken granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the action for lack of standing, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion and the case.
The detailed version
- Murphy v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10322-JPO
- James Oetken
- Aug. 18, 2022
Background
James Murphy sued Ruth’s Hospitality Group, Inc. The opinion does not describe the underlying allegations or the parties’ arguments in detail. Ruth’s Hospitality Group moved to dismiss at Docket Number 18.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that it was granting the motion for the reasons set forth in Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd., 36 F.4th 68 (2d Cir. 2022). It concluded that Murphy lacked standing, meaning the court determined that he could not pursue this action in federal court. Because the action was dismissed on standing grounds, the order did not decide the underlying legal dispute.
Disposition
The court granted Ruth’s Hospitality Group’s motion to dismiss at Docket Number 18. The action was dismissed for lack of standing. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion and the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.