Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 26, 2025

Annabi v. Ocasio-Cortez

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:24-cv-07367
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Annabi v. Ocasio-Cortez, Judge Figueredo ordered a response to the dismissal motion and found a Rule 12(c) conference request premature.

Who this affects

Karim Annabi must respond to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s motion to dismiss by April 14, 2025. The order also affects Annabi’s request for a conference about a possible motion for judgment on the pleadings.

What happened

In Annabi v. Ocasio-Cortez, Karim Annabi was directed to respond to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s motion to dismiss by April 14, 2025.

The court said Annabi’s request for a conference about a possible motion for judgment on the pleadings was premature because Ocasio-Cortez had not yet filed an answer.

Judge Valerie Figueredo entered the order on March 26, 2025. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the merits of the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Annabi v. Ocasio-Cortez · No. 1:24-cv-07367
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Mar. 26, 2025

What the court ordered

The court directed Plaintiff Karim Annabi to respond to Defendant Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s motion to dismiss by Monday, April 14, 2025.

Request for a possible later motion

Annabi also requested a conference about a possible motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Rule 12(c) allows a party to seek judgment based on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed. The court found the request premature because Ocasio-Cortez had not filed an answer. The court cited an earlier Southern District of New York decision stating that a Rule 12(c) motion is appropriate when the pleadings are closed.

Disposition

The court ordered the response deadline and declined to hold the requested conference at that time because the request was premature. The order did not decide Ocasio-Cortez’s motion to dismiss, any possible Rule 12(c) motion, or the underlying claims.

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.