Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 7, 2023

Ahmad v. Day

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:20-cv-04507
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Motion to DismissCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ahmad v. Day, Judge Furman granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed the complaint without prejudice to refiling NYCHRL claims in state court, and closed the case.

Who this affects

Mahfooz Ahmad and the defendants. The federal case was closed, while the judgment stated that the New York City Human Rights Law claims could be refiled in state court.

What happened

In Ahmad v. Day, Mahfooz Ahmad sued Colin Day and other defendants. The judgment states that the defendants moved to dismiss Ahmad’s Second Amended Complaint.

The court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint, without prejudice to refiling the New York City Human Rights Law claims in state court. The court denied as moot Ahmad’s motions for a preliminary injunction, appointment of pro bono counsel, sealing documents, and waiver of an injunction bond.

Judge Jesse Furman’s court declined to give Ahmad another opportunity to amend, denied fee-free appeal status, entered judgment for the defendants, and closed the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ahmad v. Day · No. 1:20-cv-04507
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
June 7, 2023

What the judgment says

The supplied text is a judgment that refers to the court’s Opinion and Order dated June 6, 2023. It does not include that earlier opinion’s explanation of the legal issues or reasons for dismissal.

Rulings

- The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. - The court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint, without prejudice to refiling the New York City Human Rights Law claims in state court. - Because the complaint was dismissed, the court denied as moot Ahmad’s motions for a preliminary injunction, appointment of pro bono counsel, permission to file certain documents under seal, and waiver of any injunction bond. - The court declined to grant Ahmad another opportunity to amend the complaint. The judgment states that Ahmad had already received permission to amend, did not identify additional facts that would fix the defects, and did not ask for leave to amend again. - The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the decision would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. - Judgment was entered in the defendants’ favor, and the case was closed.

Effect

The judgment ended the federal case. It expressly preserved the possibility of refiling the New York City Human Rights Law claims in state court. The judgment does not state the reasons the other claims were dismissed because those reasons appear in the separate June 6 Opinion and Order, which was not provided 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.