Superior Biologics NY, Inc. v. Aetna, Inc.
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:20-cv-05291
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Superior Biologics NY v. Aetna, Judge Karas granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion, dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, and closed the case.
Superior Biologics NY, Inc.’s amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice, ending the case; the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion was granted.
What happened
In Superior Biologics NY, Inc. v. Aetna, Inc., the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(1). The judgment does not state the underlying facts or explain the motion’s specific basis.
The court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice because the plaintiff had already amended its complaint. The case was closed.
Judge Kenneth Karas entered the ruling reflected in the September 8, 2022 judgment. The judgment cites the court’s separate opinion and order for the reasons supporting the dismissal.
The detailed version
- Superior Biologics NY, Inc. v. Aetna, Inc. · No. 7:20-cv-05291
- Kenneth Karas
- Sept. 8, 2022
Background
The available opinion text is a judgment stating that the defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). It does not provide the parties’ factual allegations or explain the specific jurisdictional or other basis for that motion. The judgment refers to a separate opinion and order dated September 8, 2022 for the court’s reasons, but that opinion and order is not included here.
Ruling
The court granted the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. The judgment states that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because the plaintiff had already amended its complaint. The court also ordered that the case be closed.
Judge and Disposition
Judge Kenneth Karas is identified in the supplied case information. The judgment is dated September 8, 2022, and states that the case was closed after the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.