Pasinetti v. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
- Subramanian
- 1:24-cv-07688
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 24
In Pasinetti v. Icahn School, Judge Subramanian granted more time to oppose dismissal and set a later deadline for defendants’ reply.
The plaintiff received additional time to file opposition papers, and the defendants received a later deadline for reply papers. The order did not resolve the underlying claims or the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Pasinetti v. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, the plaintiff asked for more time to file papers opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The request sought to move the opposition deadline from July 7 to July 12, 2025, and to move the defendants’ reply deadline to July 25, 2025.
The application stated that this was the plaintiff’s first request and that defense counsel consented to the extension. The materials also included the plaintiff’s opposition brief, but the order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the claims discussed in that brief.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the extension request and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Docket 91. The order did not state that the motion to dismiss was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Pasinetti v. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · No. 1:24-cv-07688
- Subramanian
- July 14, 2025
What the court decided
The court granted the plaintiff’s request for an enlargement of time, meaning additional time to file papers. The order directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Docket 91.
The request
The plaintiff’s letter application stated that the opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss had been due on July 7, 2025. The plaintiff requested an extension until July 12, 2025. The application also stated that the deadline for the defendants’ reply papers would be extended until July 25, 2025.
The application described the request as the plaintiff’s first and stated that the plaintiff had consulted defense counsel and obtained consent to the extension.
What the order did not decide
The filing included a lengthy memorandum opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss and discussing claims described as involving due process, defamation, retaliation, whistleblower retaliation, tortious interference with a contract, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Those arguments were presented by the plaintiff, not decided by the court in this order. The order did not rule on the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s claims, or the plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint.
Disposition
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the extension request. The order did not say that the motion to dismiss was granted or denied.
Read the full 24-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.