ICICI Bank Limited, New York Branch v. Doshi
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:18-cv-09128
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In ICICI Bank v. Doshi, Judge Broderick required plaintiffs to address service and amendment issues and paused Apoorva Doshi’s response deadline.
The order affected the plaintiffs, Apoorva Doshi, and any defendants who had not been served. It required the plaintiffs to address service and amendment issues and paused Doshi’s response deadline.
What happened
In ICICI Bank Limited, New York Branch v. Doshi, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint after the case had been pending for more than a year. The amended complaint removed Atit Shah as a defendant, and no defendant had answered.
The court noted uncertainty about whether the original complaint had been served and whether the plaintiffs properly filed the amended complaint. It ordered the plaintiffs to provide information about service and explain why the amended complaint should not be stricken, or, if service had not occurred, why the case should not be dismissed against unserved defendants.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick held Apoorva Doshi’s request for more time to respond in abeyance and paused any valid response deadline until further order. He also directed Doshi to provide a valid mailing address.
The detailed version
- ICICI Bank Limited, New York Branch v. Doshi · No. 1:18-cv-09128
- Vernon Broderick
- Dec. 19, 2019
Background
Apoorva Doshi, who was representing himself, asked for more time to respond to the plaintiffs’ complaint. The case had been pending since October 4, 2018, and no defendant had answered. Doshi had previously requested and received several extensions to respond to the initial complaint.
On November 27, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Doshi and others. The amended complaint removed Atit Shah, who had previously been a defendant. The plaintiffs had not asked the court for permission to file the amended complaint, had not informed the court that the opposing parties consented, and had not requested summonses for the amended complaint. The docket also did not contain proof that Doshi had been served with the initial complaint or had waived service.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that an amended complaint generally replaces an unserved initial complaint when filed. If the initial complaint was served, however, the amended complaint must also be served before it replaces the earlier pleading. The court also explained that a plaintiff may amend a complaint without permission only within the period allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a); otherwise, the plaintiff needs the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s permission. Filing an amended complaint does not restart the time limit for serving the original complaint under Rule 4(m).
The order did not decide whether the initial complaint had been served. Instead, it issued conditional instructions based on that unresolved question.
Orders
The court ordered that, if the initial complaint had been served on Doshi or any other defendants, the plaintiffs must file proof of service under Rule 4(l)(1) and a letter explaining why the amended complaint should not be stricken for failing to comply with Rule 15. If the initial complaint had not been served on Doshi or any other defendants, the plaintiffs had to submit a letter explaining why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute as to defendants who had not been served. The plaintiffs’ letter or filing was due by January 3, 2020.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick held Doshi’s request for an extension in abeyance. Any valid deadline for Doshi to respond to either complaint was also held in abeyance pending further order. The judge directed Doshi to provide a valid mailing address because prior court mail had repeatedly been returned as undeliverable. The order did not decide whether the amended complaint would be stricken, whether the case would be dismissed against any defendant, or whether Doshi was required to respond to either complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.