UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------X CIPCIAO, LLC,

Plaintiff, -against- 20 CIVIL 5982 (JMF)

JUDGMENT M. CHOW ONE, LLC and MICHAEL CHOW,

Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------X It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated March 24, 2021, both Defendants’ motions to dismiss are

GRANTED in full. The Court need not and does not reach Defendants’ alternative arguments for

dismissal. Additionally, the Court declines to grant Cipciao leave to amend its Complaint sua sponte.

Although leave to amend a complaint should be freely given “when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 15(a)(2), it is ultimately “within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to

amend,” McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp.,

(2d Cir. 2007). Here, Cipciao does

not request leave to amend or suggest that it is in possession of facts that would cure the problems

with its claims. See, e.g., Fischman v. Mitsubishi Chem. Holdings Am., Inc., No. 18-CV-8188 (JMF),

, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2019) (declining to grant leave to amend as to certain

claims in the absence of any suggestion that additional facts could remedy defects in the plaintiff’s

pleading). Additionally, the Court granted Cipciao leave to amend its Complaint in response to

Defendants’ motions to dismiss, but Cipciao did not take this opportunity. In granting leave to

amend, the Court explicitly warned that Cipciao would “not be given any further opportunity to

amend the complaint to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss.” ECF No. 17. In light of these

circumstances, the Court will not sua sponte grant leave to amend. See, e.g., Overby v. Fabian, No. 17-CV-3377 (CS),

, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2018) (“Plaintiff’s failure to fix deficiencies in his . . . pleading, after being provided ample notice of them, is alone sufficient ground to deny leave to amend sua sponte.”); Judgment is entered for Defendants, and this case is closed.

Dated: New York, New York March 25, 2021

RUBY J. KRAJICK Clerk of Court?’ BY: ) . } Dept’y Clerk