Mees v. City of New York
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-07346
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mees v. City of New York, Judge Nathan gave the pro se plaintiff until January 10, 2020, to amend her complaint after defendants moved to dismiss.
Heleen Mees, who was proceeding without a lawyer, and the defendants, whose pending motion to dismiss was not decided in this order.
What happened
In Mees v. City of New York, the defendants filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
The court gave Heleen Mees, who was proceeding without a lawyer, until January 10, 2020, to file an amended complaint if she chose to do so. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint and would need to include all information necessary to explain why she was entitled to relief against each defendant.
Judge Alison J. Nathan did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order. She ordered that, if no amended complaint was filed, the parties should continue following the existing briefing schedule; if one was filed, the defendants could answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or rely on their original motion.
The detailed version
- Mees v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-07346
- Alison Nathan
- Nov. 27, 2019
Background
On November 26, 2019, the defendants filed a motion under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion sought dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The opinion identifies Heleen Mees as proceeding without a lawyer.
Order
The court stated that Rule 15(a)(1)(B) ordinarily gives a plaintiff 21 days after service of a Rule 12(b) motion to amend the complaint once as a matter of course. Because Mees was proceeding without a lawyer, the court gave her additional time. It ordered that any amended complaint be filed by January 10, 2020.
The court advised that an amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint. It instructed that any amended complaint should include all information Mees believed necessary to make a short, plain statement explaining why she was entitled to relief against each defendant. The court also warned that failing to timely amend in response to the arguments raised in the defendants’ motion could waive the opportunity to use the amendment process to cure defects identified in the defendants’ briefing.
If Mees amended the complaint, the defendants could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that they intended to rely on their original motion. If she did not amend the complaint, the parties were ordered to continue following the briefing schedule set in the court’s October 25, 2019 order. The court also directed its chambers to mail a copy of the order to Mees.
Disposition and significance
This was a procedural order concerning the opportunity to amend the complaint and the next steps for responding to the pending motion. Judge Alison J. Nathan did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss in this order and did not decide whether the complaint stated a claim or whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.