Smith v. City of New York
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-08229
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Smith v. City of New York, Judge Rochon allowed an amended complaint and denied the City's motion to dismiss without prejudice as moot.
Myra S. Smith and the City of New York; the order set the next pleading and motion deadlines without deciding the merits of Smith’s claims.
What happened
In Smith v. City of New York, Myra S. Smith, who is representing herself, asked for another extension to respond to the City of New York’s motion to dismiss. The court had already extended her deadline several times, most recently to June 14, 2024.
Smith said she had not received a decision in an underlying matter and expected to add allegations about her work, including restroom access, a schedule change, and reduced wages. The court treated her request as a request to amend her complaint and gave her until August 1, 2024, to file it.
Judge Rochon granted Smith leave to amend and denied the City’s motion to dismiss without prejudice as moot. If Smith did not file an amended complaint by August 1, the original complaint would remain in effect, and the City could file another motion or otherwise respond by August 21.
The detailed version
- Smith v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-08229
- Rochon
- June 21, 2024
Background
Myra S. Smith, proceeding without a lawyer, requested another extension of time to oppose the City of New York’s motion to dismiss. The City filed that motion on January 8, 2024. Smith’s original deadline to respond was January 22, 2024, and the court extended it four times, ultimately setting June 14, 2024, as the deadline. The court had repeatedly warned Smith that she was responsible for meeting deadlines and that failing to respond could cause the motion to be treated as unopposed and could result in dismissal of the action.
Smith requested an extension through August 1, 2024. She stated that she had a May 29, 2024, return date in an underlying matter involving the City but had not received a decision. She also said she would need to amend her complaint to add information from that matter and allegations concerning the City’s alleged denial of restroom access at work, a change to her work schedule that immediately reduced her wages, and other conduct.
Court’s Action
The court construed Smith’s filing as a request to amend her complaint. Because Smith had not previously had an opportunity to amend, the court granted her leave to add factual allegations and potentially address deficiencies identified in the City’s motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, the court denied the City’s motion to dismiss without prejudice as moot at that time and directed the Clerk of Court to close the pending motion at ECF No. 11. Smith’s amended complaint was due August 1, 2024. The court stated that no extension beyond that date would be granted absent good cause, and specifically stated that access to her cell phone, Verizon connection, and other digital services would not constitute good cause under the circumstances described in the order.
If Smith failed to file an amended complaint by August 1, her original complaint would remain the operative complaint. The City could then re-file its motion to dismiss, or otherwise respond, by August 21, 2024. Smith’s opposition would be due 14 days after the City filed the motion, with no further extensions absent good cause.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.