Michele Metcalf v. Transperfect Global Inc.

Background

TransPerfect Global, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Michele Metcalf’s pleading on November 15, 2019. The order does not describe the claims or the arguments in that motion.

Order

Under Rule 3.F of the court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, the court directed Metcalf to notify the court and TransPerfect in writing by November 25, 2019, whether she would either (1) file an amended pleading and state when she would do so or (2) rely on the pleading challenged by the motion to dismiss.

The court warned that declining to amend in response to a fully explained argument in the motion could constitute a waiver of the right to use the amendment process to cure defects identified in TransPerfect’s briefing. If Metcalf amended, TransPerfect could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that it relied on its original motion. The order also stated that it did not change the deadlines for amending, answering, or filing a motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court’s local rules.

Disposition and Effect

This was a procedural scheduling and pleading-related order. The court did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss, decide whether Metcalf’s claims were legally sufficient, or resolve the underlying dispute.