Cheeks v. Montefiore Medical Center
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-02170
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cheeks v. Montefiore Medical Center, Judge Furman granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, allowed refiling state-law claims in state court, and declined further amendment of federal claims.
Leslie Cheeks and the defendants, including Montefiore Medical Center; the judgment also concerns any state-law claims Cheeks may refile in state court.
What happened
The judgment in Cheeks v. Montefiore Medical Center states that the defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted. The judgment refers to a separate memorandum opinion and order dated November 28, 2023, but does not explain the underlying claims or reasons for dismissal.
The dismissal was without prejudice to refiling any state-law claims in state court. The court declined to grant Cheeks permission to amend her federal claims again on its own. It said Cheeks had already received permission to amend, had not requested another opportunity, and had not identified additional facts that could fix the defects in her claims.
Judge Furman’s court also noted that its earlier permission to amend had expressly warned that Cheeks would not receive another opportunity. The judgment was dated November 28, 2023, and was entered by the clerk.
The detailed version
- Cheeks v. Montefiore Medical Center · No. 1:23-cv-02170
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 28, 2023
Ruling
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s memorandum opinion and order dated November 28, 2023, the defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted. The judgment does not include the memorandum’s explanation of the claims or the grounds for dismissal.
State-law claims
The judgment expressly says that the dismissal was without prejudice to refiling any state-law claims in state court. “Without prejudice” means that the judgment did not bar those state-law claims from being filed in state court.
Federal claims and amendment
The court declined to grant Cheeks leave to amend her federal claims on its own. It explained that the court had already allowed her to amend, Cheeks had not asked for permission to amend again, and she had not suggested that she had additional facts that could correct the defects in the dismissed claims. The court also noted that its earlier order had expressly warned that Cheeks would not receive another opportunity to amend.
Disposition
The defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted. The judgment separately states that any state-law claims could be refiled in state court and that the court would not grant further amendment of the federal claims on its own. Judge Furman is identified in the supplied case information; the judgment itself is signed by Ruby J. Krajick, Clerk of Court, by a deputy clerk.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.