Tomer Avraham MD Plastic Surgery LLC v. 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund for Home…
Tomer Avraham MD Plastic Surgery LLC v. 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund for Home Care Employees
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-09537
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Tomer Avraham v. 1199SEIU, Judge Broderick gave the plaintiff until February 24, 2025, to oppose the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The plaintiff, Tomer Avraham MD Plastic Surgery LLC, was given a deadline to respond to the defendant’s motion to dismiss; the defendant, 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund for Home Care Employees, was required to await that response before the court considered its motion further.
What happened
In Tomer Avraham MD Plastic Surgery LLC v. 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund for Home Care Employees, the defendant asked the court to dismiss the complaint on January 27, 2025. The plaintiff’s response was due February 10, 2025, but the plaintiff had not filed one or taken other action by February 19.
The court ordered the plaintiff to file any opposition by February 24, 2025. The court warned that it would consider the motion unopposed if the plaintiff did not respond or make another filing by that date.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order. He also cited a prior decision stating that failing to respond to a motion to dismiss does not, by itself, require dismissal when a complaint adequately states a claim.
The detailed version
- Tomer Avraham MD Plastic Surgery LLC v. 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund for Home… · No. 1:24-cv-09537
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 19, 2025
Background
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint on January 27, 2025. Under the court’s local rules, the plaintiff’s opposition was due February 10, 2025. As of February 19, the plaintiff had not filed an opposition or taken any other action in the case.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiff to file any opposition to the motion to dismiss no later than February 24, 2025. The court stated that if the plaintiff failed to oppose the motion or submit another filing by that date, it would consider the motion unopposed.
The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss. The court cited a prior decision explaining that a plaintiff’s failure to respond to a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) does not by itself require dismissal if the complaint states a legally sufficient claim.
Effect
The order gave the plaintiff an additional deadline and warned of the consequence of not responding. It did not resolve the defendant’s request to dismiss the complaint.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.