Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Order — Wax v. Cross River Bank (Dkt. 42)

Order — Wax v. Cross River Bank (Dkt. 42)

Summary

In Wax v. Cross River Bank, Civil Action No. 24-9510, District Judge Esther Salas rules on Defendant Cross River Bank's motion to dismiss the Complaint of Lead Plaintiff Mitchell Wax. The order grants the motion in full and dismisses the Complaint without prejudice, stating that an Opinion is to follow. It allows Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint that cures the deficiencies noted in the Opinion within thirty days of the issuance of that Opinion. It directs the Clerk of Court to terminate docket entry number 39.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Order — Wax v. Cross River Bank (Dkt. 42).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/gov-uscourts-njd-555169-42-0-77ab3e9a57/, SHA-256 c5849d84d1567c39063a180db0580698f7cc42b9b7820e29556bc59a87804351.

Full text

Case 2:24-cv-09510-ES-JRA         Document 42       Filed 03/31/26     Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1461




 Not for Publication

                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                 DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

   MITCHELL WAX,

                     Plaintiff,
                                                     Civil Action No. 24-9510 (ES) (JRA)
                     v.
                                                                     ORDER
   CROSS RIVER BANK,

                     Defendant.


 SALAS, DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Defendant Cross River Bank’s (“CRB” or “Defendant”) motion to

 dismiss Lead Plaintiff Mitchell Wax’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint (D.E. No. 1 (“Complaint” or

 “Compl.”)). (D.E. No. 39 (“Motion to Dismiss” or “Mot.”)). Having carefully considered the

 parties’ submissions in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court decides Defendant’s

 Motion without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). For the reasons set

 forth in the Court’s Opinion to follow,

         IT IS on this 31st day of March 2026,

         ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED in full; and it is further

         ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (D.E. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice;

 and it is further

         ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint that cures the deficiencies

 noted in the Court’s Opinion to follow within thirty days of the issuance of the Court’s

 forthcoming Opinion; and it is further

         ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE docket entry number 39.
Case 2:24-cv-09510-ES-JRA   Document 42   Filed 03/31/26   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1462




                                                 s/ Esther Salas
                                                 Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.




                                      2

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.njd.555169.42.0.pdf
Size
125,869 bytes
SHA-256
c5849d84d1567c39063a180db0580698f7cc42b9b7820e29556bc59a87804351
Our copy
gov.uscourts.njd.555169.42.0.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
Back to top