Yarbrough v. Bragg
- Ho
- 1:25-cv-00159
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Yarbrough v. Bragg, Judge Ho granted amendment and deadline requests, denied three other applications, and stayed proceedings pending defendants’ response.
Sara-Judith Yarbrough and the defendants, because the order set amendment and response deadlines, denied three applications, and paused other proceedings.
What happened
Sara-Judith Yarbrough, who is representing herself in Yarbrough v. Bragg, filed several notices and demands while the case was pending. The court broadly interpreted one filing as requesting permission to amend her complaint and extending the defendants’ deadline to respond.
The court granted that request. Yarbrough must file an amended complaint by April 11, 2025, and the defendants must answer or ask to dismiss it by May 15, 2025. The court denied three other filings because it could not identify any relief to which Yarbrough was entitled.
Judge Dale E. Ho also stayed all other proceedings, including discovery, until the defendants respond to the amended complaint. If the defendants ask the court to dismiss the amended complaint, the stay will continue while that request is decided.
The detailed version
- Yarbrough v. Bragg · No. 1:25-cv-00159
- Ho
- Mar. 27, 2025
Background
Sara-Judith Yarbrough was proceeding without a lawyer. She filed four documents: demands for the defendants’ public-official bonds, a demand for judicial bonds, a notice concerning additional time for service and response, and a notice concerning missing docket entries.
Rulings
The court broadly construed the notice concerning additional time, ECF No. 34, as seeking two forms of relief: permission to amend Yarbrough’s complaint and an extension of the defendants’ deadline to answer or move to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted that application. Yarbrough was ordered to file an amended complaint by April 11, 2025, and the defendants were ordered to respond by May 15, 2025.
The court denied the applications in ECF Nos. 29, 30, and 35. Even reading those filings liberally, the court could not identify any relief to which Yarbrough was entitled.
The court also ordered that all other proceedings be stayed on its own motion because discovery had not begun and a stay would promote efficient case management. The stay does not prevent Yarbrough from filing the amended complaint or the defendants from responding. If the defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint, the stay will remain in place while that motion is resolved. The clerk was requested to terminate ECF Nos. 29, 30, 34, and 35.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.