Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 31, 2023

In re Garrett Motion Inc. Securities Litigation

Docket
1:20-cv-07992
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
SecuritiesCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In re Garrett Motion Inc. Securities Litigation was dismissed after a failed amendment; the court found further amendment unwarranted and closed the case.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs’ securities-litigation claims were dismissed, and the case was closed.

What happened

In In re Garrett Motion Inc. Securities Litigation, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. The judgment says the plaintiffs had already been given an opportunity to plead fraud more specifically but failed to do so.

The court concluded that allowing another amendment was not warranted. The judgment does not say that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The case was closed, according to the judgment entered by the court on March 31, 2023.

The detailed version

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

Case
In re Garrett Motion Inc. Securities Litigation · No. 1:20-cv-07992
Date
Mar. 31, 2023

Background

The judgment concerns the plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint in a securities-litigation case. It refers to the court’s separate Opinion and Order dated March 31, 2023, which supplied the reasons for the judgment. That earlier opinion is not included in the provided text.

Ruling

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. The judgment states that the plaintiffs had been given an opportunity to amend their pleading to allege fraud with greater specificity, but had failed to do so. The court therefore concluded that further leave to amend—the opportunity to file another amended complaint—was not warranted. The judgment does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Disposition

The case was closed. The provided judgment is dated March 31, 2023, and was entered by the clerk of the Southern District of New York. Because the text describes dismissal based on failure to plead fraud with sufficient specificity and does not provide the earlier opinion’s analysis, this is classified as a procedural order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.