Legal Opinion
Protic v. Dengler
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided April 28, 1999No. 98 Civ. 8179(LAK)PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION (CORRECTED)
KAPLAN, District Judge.
Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint, which alleges claims for tortious interference with prospective employment opportunities, libel and slander. Plaintiff cross-moves for leave to amend. The only substantial argument raised in opposition to the cross-motion is that the amendment would be futile because it would not cure the alleged deficiencies of the original complaint. Accordingly, the Court will consider the sufficiency of the amended complaint.
Facts
The plaintiff, Misho Protic, was employed by Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc.…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Liberman v. GelsteinNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Gross v. New York Times Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Immuno AG. v. Moor-JankowskiNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Perks v. Town of HuntingtonDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2003
- DiBella v. HopkinsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2002
- Harger v. PriceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2002
- America Online Latino v. AMERICAN ONLINE, INC.District Court, S.D. New York · 2003
- Miteva v. Third Point Management Co., LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2004
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.