Case ID: f-appx_115/html/0105-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kevin E. BURNS, Barbara Burns, and Renee A. De Fina, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA, its affiliates, subsidiaries and agents, including, but not limited to, BA Mortgage, Defendants-Appellees.
    Docket No. 04-0061.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 14, 2004.
    Barbara R. Burns, Hackensack, N.J., for Plaintiffs-Appellants, pro se.
    Steven S. Rand, Zeichner Ellman & Krause LLP, New York, N.Y., for Defendants-Appellees.
    Present: OAKES, KATZMANN, and HWESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

The district court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for substantially the reasons it articulated in its order, see Burns v. Bank of America, No. 03 Civ. 1685, 2003 WL 22990065, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22799 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.18, 2003), but we think it prudent to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint, see Fed. R.Civ.P. 15(a); Pangburn v. Culbertson, 200 F.3d 65, 70 (2d Cir.1999) (“ ‘[A] pro se complaint is to be read liberally,’ and should not be dismissed without granting leave to amend at least once when such a reading ‘gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.’” (citation omitted)).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.