Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 1, 2024

Drob Collectibles, LLC v. Leaf Trading Cards, LLC

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:23-cv-00063
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Drob Collectibles v. Leaf Trading Cards, Judge Woods granted dismissal: Counts III and VII may be repleaded, while Counts I, V, and VI may not.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs’ Counts I, V, and VI were dismissed with prejudice and cannot be repleaded. Counts III and VII were dismissed without prejudice, and the plaintiffs may replead them. The defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted.

What happened

In Drob Collectibles, LLC v. Leaf Trading Cards, LLC, a magistrate judge recommended granting Leaf’s motion to dismiss five claims under the rule governing whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Neither side objected to that recommendation, so the district court reviewed it for clear error and found none.

The court accepted the recommendation and granted Leaf’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Counts III and VII without prejudice and allowed the plaintiffs to replead those claims. It dismissed Counts I, V, and VI with prejudice and did not allow the plaintiffs to replead them.

Judge Gregory H. Woods entered the order on March 1, 2024. The order also stated that the magistrate judge’s ruling on Leaf’s motion to transfer was not before the district court for review.

The detailed version

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

Case
Drob Collectibles, LLC v. Leaf Trading Cards, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-00063
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Mar. 1, 2024

Background

The defendant filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Magistrate Judge Willis issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the district court grant the motion as to Counts I, III, V, VI, and VII. The magistrate judge also denied the defendant’s motion to transfer, but that ruling was not before the district court for review.

The parties did not submit objections to the Report and Recommendation within the required fourteen-day period. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. It accepted and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

Disposition

The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Counts I, V, and VI with prejudice and without leave to replead. It dismissed Counts III and VII without prejudice and granted the plaintiffs leave to replead those two claims.

The court explained that the case was still at an early stage, the plaintiffs had not previously amended their complaint, and amendment of Counts III and VII might not be futile. The court specifically noted that the pleading deficiencies identified for those counts might be corrected through further amendment. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions pending at Docket Nos. 15 and 17.

Judge and ruling

Judge Gregory H. Woods entered the order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation after finding no clear error. The order does not provide the underlying factual allegations or explain the specific pleading deficiencies beyond the discussion summarized from the Report and Recommendation.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.