Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 6, 2023

Dr. Stewart Lucas Murrey v. Brandyourself.com Inc

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:21-cv-00320
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Dr. Stewart Lucas Murrey v. Brandyourself.com, Judge Torres denied amendment, denied transfer as moot, and dismissed defendants with prejudice.

Who this affects

Dr. Stewart Lucas Murrey and the defendants Brandyourself.com, Inc., Tom Vitolo, and Christian Tyron.

What happened

Dr. Stewart Lucas Murrey sued Brandyourself.com, Inc., Tom Vitolo, and Christian Tyron, claiming violations of federal and California laws, fraud, and civil conspiracy. Murrey represented himself.

After the court had dismissed his first amended complaint, Murrey asked to file a second amended complaint and to transfer the case back to California. A magistrate judge recommended denying the amendment request, denying the transfer request as moot, and dismissing the defendants with prejudice.

Because no one objected, Judge Analisa Torres reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it in full. Judge Torres denied the motion to amend, denied the motion to transfer as moot, dismissed the defendants with prejudice, directed the clerk to close the case, and ordered that a copy be mailed to Murrey.

The detailed version

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

Case
Dr. Stewart Lucas Murrey v. Brandyourself.com Inc · No. 1:21-cv-00320
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Feb. 6, 2023

Background

Dr. Stewart Lucas Murrey, representing himself, sued Brandyourself.com, Inc., Tom Vitolo, and Christian Tyron. His first amended complaint asserted claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, California’s unfair competition law, California’s statutory and common-law right of publicity, common-law fraud, and civil conspiracy.

The court had previously granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint but allowed Murrey to seek permission to file a second amended complaint. Murrey timely moved for leave to amend and attached a proposed second amended complaint. He also moved to transfer the action back to the Central District of California.

Report and Recommendation

The court referred both motions to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott. Judge Cott recommended denying the motion to amend, denying the motion to transfer as moot, and dismissing the defendants with prejudice. No party objected to the recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, and found none.

Ruling

Judge Analisa Torres adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court denied Murrey’s motion to amend, denied as moot his motion to transfer, and dismissed the defendants with prejudice, using the court’s stated disposition. The clerk was directed to terminate the listed motions, mail a copy of the order to Murrey, and close the case.

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.