Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 26, 2022

Worley v. Simon Meyrowitz & Meyrowitz, P.C.

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:21-cv-08385
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Motion to DismissConsumer CreditCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Worley v. Simon Meyrowitz & Meyrowitz, P.C., Judge Furman granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss Hattie Worley’s FDCPA claims and closed the case.

Who this affects

Hattie Worley and Simon Meyrowitz & Meyrowitz, P.C.

What happened

In Worley v. Simon Meyrowitz & Meyrowitz, P.C., the defendant asked the court to rule in its favor based on the pleadings. The judgment identifies the claims as Hattie Worley’s claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The court treated the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as a motion to dismiss and granted it. The judgment does not explain the specific defects in Worley’s claims, but it says those problems were either jurisdictional or substantive.

The court also declined to allow Worley to amend her claims, stating that amendment would not fix the problems and that she had not requested permission to amend or identified additional facts that would help. Judge Jesse Furman’s court stated that the case was closed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Worley v. Simon Meyrowitz & Meyrowitz, P.C. · No. 1:21-cv-08385
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Oct. 26, 2022

Ruling

The judgment states that Simon Meyrowitz & Meyrowitz, P.C.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) was treated as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) and granted. The judgment refers to Worley’s claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, but it does not identify the specific jurisdictional or substantive defects discussed in the underlying October 25, 2022 Opinion and Order.

Amendment

The court declined to give Worley permission to amend her complaint. It stated that amendment would be futile because the problems with her claims were jurisdictional or substantive. It also noted that Worley did not request permission to amend, did not argue that she had additional facts that could cure the defects, and had been notified of the defendant’s arguments before filing the operative complaint.

Disposition

The judgment states that the motion was granted and that the case was closed. Judge Jesse Furman is identified in the case information supplied with the opinion; the judgment itself is signed by the court clerk and deputy clerk.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.