Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 16, 2025

Fox Shiver LLC v. Individuals

Full caption

Fox Shiver LLC v. Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A to the Complaint

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:25-cv-03068
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
7
Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissPro Se
In one sentence

In Fox Shiver LLC v. Individuals, Judge Furman set amendment and response deadlines after a dismissal motion without deciding that motion.

Who this affects

Fox Shiver LLC and Julie M. Norris d/b/a FamilyMakingsByJulie. Fox Shiver received a deadline to amend or oppose the dismissal motion, and Norris received instructions and recognition as a self-represented party. The motion to dismiss remained undecided.

What happened

Fox Shiver LLC sued defendants listed on Schedule A to its complaint. Julie M. Norris, doing business as FamilyMakingsByJulie, filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court gave Fox Shiver until October 28, 2025, to file an amended complaint addressing issues raised by the motion. If Fox Shiver amended, Norris would have three weeks to answer, file a new dismissal motion, or rely on the existing motion. If Fox Shiver did not amend, it had until October 28 to oppose the motion, and Norris could reply by November 12.

Judge Jesse M. Furman did not decide the motion to dismiss. He found, subject to reconsideration, that FamilyMakingsByJulie was a sole proprietorship with no legal existence separate from Norris, so Norris could represent it without a lawyer; the clerk was directed to add Norris as a self-represented party and mail her the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Fox Shiver LLC v. Individuals · No. 1:25-cv-03068
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Oct. 16, 2025

Background

On October 7, 2025, Julie M. Norris, doing business as FamilyMakingsByJulie, filed a motion to dismiss Fox Shiver LLC’s complaint under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the arguments in the motion.

Amendment and briefing schedule

The court explained that Rule 15(a)(1)(B) allows a plaintiff 21 days after service of a Rule 12(b) motion to amend the complaint once without obtaining the court’s permission. The court ordered Fox Shiver to file any amended complaint by October 28, 2025. Any amendment had to address only issues raised by the dismissal motion and had to include a redline showing changes from the original complaint. The court stated that Fox Shiver would receive no further opportunity to amend to address those issues.

If Fox Shiver amended the complaint, Norris had three weeks after the amended complaint was filed to answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or state that she relied on the previously filed motion. If Norris filed an answer or a new motion, the court would deny the original motion as moot. If Norris filed a new motion or relied on the original motion, Fox Shiver’s opposition would be due within 14 days and any reply would be due within seven days after the opposition.

If Fox Shiver did not amend, its opposition to the motion was due October 28, 2025, and Norris’s reply, if any, was due November 12, 2025. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss.

FamilyMakingsByJulie and self-representation

Norris asserted that FamilyMakingsByJulie was a sole proprietorship. Based on that assertion, the court understood that FamilyMakingsByJulie had no legal existence separate from Norris and found that Norris was the true defendant. Subject to reconsideration if Fox Shiver raised the issue or contrary evidence emerged, the court held that the usual rule barring self-represented litigants from representing entities did not apply.

The clerk was directed to add Julie M. Norris d/b/a FamilyMakingsByJulie as a self-represented party to the docket, include the address information listed in her motion, and mail her a copy of the order. The order also provided instructions concerning service, communications with the court, filing papers, extensions, discovery, and the district’s pro se law clinic.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-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.