Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 19, 2023

Amigon v. Luzon

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:21-cv-02029
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Amigon v. Luzon, Judge Halpern granted dismissal, ending federal claims with prejudice and state claims without prejudice.

Who this affects

Anthony Amigon’s claims against Dylan J. Luzon and the other defendants; the federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, while the state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

What happened

In Amigon v. Luzon, the defendants asked the court to dismiss Anthony Amigon’s claims.

The court granted the motion. It dismissed Amigon’s first three federal claims with prejudice and his remaining three state-law claims without prejudice. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal, found that the case was closed, and refused further permission to amend the federal claims.

Judge Halpern is identified as the judge in the case information provided. The judgment states that the reasons for the dismissal appeared in a separate opinion and order dated January 19, 2023.

The detailed version

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

Case
Amigon v. Luzon · No. 7:21-cv-02029
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Jan. 19, 2023

Ruling

The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The judgment states that Plaintiff Anthony Amigon brought six claims for relief: three under federal law and three under state law.

Disposition of Claims

The first three federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning the judgment bars those claims from being refiled in the case. The remaining three state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning the judgment did not impose that same bar on those claims.

The court stated that Amigon could not correct the defects in the federal claims through another amendment. It noted that he had already amended his complaint twice and had had an adequate opportunity to address the deficiencies. The court therefore provided no further opportunity to amend.

Appeal and Case Status

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal from the dismissal order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The judgment states that the case was closed.

The judgment refers to the reasons given in the court’s separate Opinion and Order dated January 19, 2023. That separate opinion is not included in the supplied text, so the specific defects in the claims are not described here.

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.