Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-14
Citations: 115 F. App'x 105
Docket Number: Docket No. 04-0061
Parties: 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.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 105–105

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.