Hudson Neurosurgey, PLLC v. UMR, Inc.
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:20-cv-09642
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hudson Neurosurgery v. UMR, Judge Karas granted UMR’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the claims with prejudice, and closed the case.
The plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice after the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss; the case was closed.
What happened
Hudson Neurosurgery, PLLC v. UMR, Inc. involved a motion by the defendant to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The opinion states that the plaintiffs had already amended their complaint once after being told about its deficiencies.
The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. It relied on the plaintiffs’ prior amendment and stated that allowing another amendment would give them a “third bite at the apple.”
Judge Karas’s order dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice and closed the case. The order is dated September 28, 2023.
The detailed version
- Hudson Neurosurgey, PLLC v. UMR, Inc. · No. 7:20-cv-09642
- Kenneth Karas
- Sept. 28, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs had already amended their complaint once after being put on notice of its deficiencies. The court stated that an earlier related proceeding had been the first adjudication of the plaintiffs’ claims on the merits.
Motion and ruling
The defendant moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion. It declined to allow another amendment, explaining that doing so would give the plaintiffs a “third bite at the apple” after they had already amended once and had notice of the complaint’s deficiencies.
Disposition
The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice and stated that the case was closed. The order does not provide further details about the specific claims or the court’s underlying analysis because it refers to the reasons stated in a separate Opinion & Order dated September 28, 2023.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.