UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------X TARA ALAMEDA, KAMECA BALAN, and DEBBIE HAMELL-PALMER, each on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,

Plaintiffs, -against- 23 CIVIL 6156 (KMK)

JUDGMENT ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORK BOARDS,

Defendant. ----------------------------------------------------------------X It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated September 25, 2025, the Motion is granted. Plaintiffs have amended their pleading twice, once after being put on notice of its deficiencies. See Goldrich v. Masco Corp., No. 22-CV-3769,

, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2023) (rendering “the first adjudication of Plaintiff's claims on the merits”). “To grant Plaintiffs leave to amend would be allowing them a ‘third bite at the apple,’ which courts in this [D]istrict routinely deny.” Binn v. Bernstein, No. 19-CV-6122,

, at *34 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2020) (collecting cases), report and recommendation adopted,

(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2020); see also Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Pepsico, Inc.,

, 574 n.28 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“[T]he [c]ourt has given [p]laintiff two bites at the apple, and there is no need for a third bite.”); cf. Nat’l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n,

, 257–58 (2d Cir. 2018) (“When a plaintiff was aware of the deficiencies in his complaint when he first amended, he clearly has no right to a second amendment even if the proposed second amended complaint in fact cures the defects of the first. Simply put, a busy district court need not allow itself to be imposed upon by the presentation of theories seriatim.” (alteration adopted) (footnote and quotation marks omitted)). Plaintiff's SAC is therefore dismissed with prejudice; accordingly, the case 1s closed. Dated: New York, New York September 26, 2025 TAMMI M. HELLWIG Clerkof Court BY: K (MANGe Deputy Clerk