Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 25, 2024

McGillvary v. Rolling Stone, LLC

Judge
Sarah Netburn
Docket
1:23-cv-10428
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In McGillvary v. Rolling Stone, Judge Netburn required defendants to state whether they consent to a second amended complaint and paused opposition and reply deadlines.

Who this affects

Caleb L. McGillvary and the defendants, whose response and briefing deadlines were governed by the order.

What happened

In McGillvary v. Rolling Stone, LLC, Caleb L. McGillvary asked for permission to file a second amended complaint.

The court explained that McGillvary had already used his one automatic opportunity to amend his complaint. He therefore needed the defendants’ written consent or the court’s permission to amend again. The defendants had to tell the court by July 2, 2024, whether they consented and whether the proposed complaint would change their motion to dismiss.

Judge Sarah Netburn stayed the deadlines for McGillvary’s opposition and the defendants’ reply until the court issued another order. The order did not grant or deny permission to file the second amended complaint.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
McGillvary v. Rolling Stone, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-10428
Judge
Sarah Netburn
Date
June 25, 2024

Background

The court received Caleb L. McGillvary’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, dated June 5, 2024.

Court’s analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) allows a party to amend its pleading once without asking the court for permission. The court stated that McGillvary had used that opportunity by timely filing his first amended complaint on April 11, 2024. Under Rule 15(a)(2), McGillvary could not file another amended complaint without either the defendants’ written consent or the court’s permission.

Order

The court directed the defendants to file a letter by July 2, 2024, stating whether they consented to McGillvary filing a second amended complaint. If they consented, the defendants also had to state whether the proposed amended complaint changed their motion to dismiss. The court stayed the deadlines for McGillvary’s opposition and the defendants’ reply pending a further order. Judge Sarah Netburn did not grant or deny the motion for leave in this order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.