Loughlin v. Goord

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK eK SUZANNE LOUGHLIN, et al., Plaintiff, -against- 20 CIVIL 6357 (LIL) JUDGMENT GLENN GOORD, Defendant. □□ K It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED): That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated September 1, 2021, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Because Plaintiffs already had the opportunity to amend their complaint after Defendant's first motion to dismiss and because Plaintiffs identify no facts that could cure the defects in their pleading, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. See, e.g., Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 2005 WL 2086339, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2005) ("[T]he Court finds that leave to amend would be futile because plaintiff has already had two bites at the apple and they have proven fruitless."); accordingly, the case is closed.

Dated: New York, New York September 2, 2021 RUBY J. KRAJICK Clerk of Court BY: HK MANGO Deputy Clerk