Bronx Legal Ser. v. Legal Ser.

Full title: BRONX LEGAL SERVICES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEGAL SERVICES FOR NEW YORK…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Oct 29, 2003

78 F. App'x 781 (2d Cir. 2003)

Opinion

No. 03-7102.

October 29, 2003.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (George B. Daniels, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED

that the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: ROBERT M. KELLY, White Case LLP, New York, NY.

APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: DONALD J. RIDINGS, JR. (Thomas S. Williamson, Jr. of counsel), Covington Burling, Washington, DC (Victor Fortuno, Vice President and General Counsel, Lynn Bulan, Senior Assistant General Counsel, of counsel), Legal Services Corporation, Washington, DC, for Appellee Legal Services Corporation, RICHARD C. PEPPERMAN, II, Sullivan Cromwell LLP, New York, NY, for Appellee Legal Services for New York City.

PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER JOSÉ A. CABRANES ROBERT D. SACK Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Bronx Legal Services appeals from an Opinion and Order of the District Court that (i) granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, (ii) denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, and (iii) denied plaintiff's application for leave to amend.

Substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court's opinion, we affirm the judgment of the District Court dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.

We also affirm the District Court's denial of leave to amend the complaint. While it is true that the District Court did not elaborate on its decision to deny leave to amend, it is also true that plaintiff gave the Court no reason why it should be entitled to amend. Instead, without offering any proposed amendments, plaintiff simply requested, at the end of its brief in opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss, that it be given an opportunity to replead in the event the motions were granted. Even now, in their appellate briefs, plaintiff does not tell us exactly what it might allege in an amended complaint that would cure the deficiencies in its pleadings. In the circumstances presented, we cannot conclude that the District Court abused its discretion when it summarily denied an unsubstantiated request for leave to amend.

We have considered all of plaintiff's claims on appeal and we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.