Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 4, 2019

Hawkins v. Well Path, LLC

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:19-cv-08969
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Hawkins v. Well Path, LLC, Judge Briccetti ordered Hawkins to choose whether to amend her complaint before the dismissal motion proceeds.

Who this affects

Janie Hawkins and Well Path, LLC; the order primarily affects Hawkins’s choice to amend the complaint and Well Path’s options for responding.

What happened

Hawkins v. Well Path, LLC concerns Well Path’s motion to dismiss the complaint, filed on December 3, 2019.

The court ordered Hawkins to notify it by December 13 whether she would file an amended complaint or rely on the existing complaint. If she amended, she had to file it within 14 days after notifying the court, and Well Path then had 21 days to respond in one of three ways.

Judge Briccetti stated that if Hawkins relied on the existing complaint, the motion to dismiss would proceed under the regular schedule and the court was unlikely to allow another amendment opportunity. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hawkins v. Well Path, LLC · No. 7:19-cv-08969
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Dec. 4, 2019

Background

The opinion states that Well Path, LLC moved to dismiss Janie Hawkins’s complaint on December 3, 2019. The text does not describe the claims or the grounds for the motion.

Order

The court ordered Hawkins to notify the court by December 13, 2019, whether she intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion to dismiss or would rely on the complaint already challenged by the motion.

If Hawkins chose to amend, the court required her to file the amended complaint no later than 14 days after notifying the court of that intent. Within 21 days after the amendment, Well Path could answer the amended complaint, move to dismiss it, or notify the court that it would rely on its original motion to dismiss.

If Hawkins chose not to amend, the court said the motion to dismiss would proceed under the regular schedule. The court also stated that it was unlikely to grant Hawkins another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies made apparent by the fully briefed motion. The deadlines for opposing and reply papers would be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules unless the court ordered otherwise.

Disposition

This order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of the complaint. It directed the plaintiff to choose how to proceed and set related filing procedures.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.