Averbach v. Cairo Amman Bank
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-00004
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Averbach v. Cairo Amman Bank, Magistrate Judge Parker extended the complaint deadline and ordered proposals on expert discovery and Twitter’s effect on the case.
The plaintiffs and Cairo Amman Bank, because the order changes the deadline for the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint and requires the parties to propose schedules.
What happened
Averbach v. Cairo Amman Bank is a case in which the court held a case-management conference on August 15, 2024. The order extended the plaintiffs’ deadline to file a third amended complaint to August 27, 2024.
The parties must file a letter by September 6, 2024, proposing a revised schedule for expert discovery about liability and a schedule for briefing the possible effect of a 2023 Supreme Court decision involving Twitter on this case. The letter must say whether the parties plan to address that issue through a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment.
Magistrate Judge Parker entered this case-management order. The order does not decide the merits of the dispute or rule on a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.
The detailed version
- Averbach v. Cairo Amman Bank · No. 1:19-cv-00004
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 15, 2024
Order
The court issued a post-case-management-conference order after the August 15, 2024 conference.
Deadlines and required filing
The court extended the plaintiffs’ deadline to file a third amended complaint to August 27, 2024.
The parties must file a letter with the court by September 6, 2024. The letter must include:
- a proposed revised schedule for expert discovery concerning liability; and - a proposed briefing schedule concerning the possible effect of Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471 (2023), on this case.
The letter must also state whether the parties intend to address the effect of Twitter through a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment.
What the court decided
This is a case-management order. The opinion does not decide the parties’ underlying legal dispute and does not rule on a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.