Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 20, 2024

Goldrich v. Masco Corporation

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:22-cv-03769
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Goldrich v. Watkins Wellness, Judge Karas granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Goldrich’s claims with prejudice after two amendments.

Who this affects

Steven Goldrich, Watkins Wellness, and Wellness Marketing Corporation, doing business as Endless Pools.

What happened

In Goldrich v. Watkins Wellness, Steven Goldrich sued Watkins Wellness and Wellness Marketing Corporation, doing business as Endless Pools. The judgment states that Goldrich had already amended his complaint twice, including once after being told about its problems.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It denied another opportunity to amend, dismissed Goldrich’s claims with prejudice, and closed the case.

Judge Karas is identified in the case information as the judge. The judgment was entered on March 20, 2024, by the court clerk for the reasons stated in a separate opinion and order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Goldrich v. Masco Corporation · No. 7:22-cv-03769
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Mar. 20, 2024

Background

Steven Goldrich brought claims against Watkins Wellness and Wellness Marketing Corporation, doing business as Endless Pools. The judgment states that Goldrich had already amended his complaint twice, and that he had amended it once after being notified of deficiencies in the complaint. The judgment also refers to an earlier decision as the first adjudication of his claims on the merits.

Ruling

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It refused to allow another amendment, explaining that granting leave to amend would give Goldrich a “third bite at the apple.” The court dismissed Goldrich’s claims with prejudice and closed the case.

What the judgment does not say

The provided judgment does not describe the specific deficiencies in the complaint or explain the underlying legal theories in detail. It states that those reasons appear in the court’s Opinion and Order dated March 20, 2024.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth Karas is identified in the case information as the presiding judge. The judgment was dated March 20, 2024, and entered by the clerk of court.

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.