DeRaffele v. Williams and Williams
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-06033
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In DeRaffele v. Williams and Williams, Judge Halpern granted defendants’ dismissal motion and closed the case.
John DeRaffele and the defendants named in the judgment; the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice and the case was closed.
What happened
In DeRaffele v. Williams and Williams, the defendants asked the court to dismiss John DeRaffele’s amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.
The judgment states that DeRaffele had already amended his complaint once. It further states that another amendment would be futile, meaning it would not cure the problems identified by the court.
Judge Halpern granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice and closed the case.
The detailed version
- DeRaffele v. Williams and Williams · No. 7:21-cv-06033
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 16, 2023
Background
John DeRaffele sued Williams and Williams, Auction Network; Jennifer Bennett; John Heiliger; and Williams and Williams Marketing Services, Inc. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a rule addressing whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.
Ruling
The judgment states that the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It also states that DeRaffele had already amended his complaint once and that any further amendment would be futile. The court therefore dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice and closed the case.
Disposition
Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion: granted. Amended Complaint: dismissed with prejudice. Case: closed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.