IN RE MERRILL, BOFA, AND MORGAN STANLEY SPOOFING LITIGATION
- Victor Marrero
- 1:19-cv-06002
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Spoofing Litigation: Judge Nathan ordered plaintiffs to tell the court whether they will amend after defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the spoofing litigation, because the order set plaintiffs’ notification deadline and identified defendants’ options if plaintiffs amended.
What happened
In In re Merrill, BOFA, and Morgan Stanley Spoofing Litigation, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 13, 2020.
The court required plaintiffs to notify the court and defendants by January 23 whether they would file an amended pleading or rely on their existing pleading. The order warned that declining to amend in response to fully briefed arguments could waive the opportunity to cure defects identified in the motion.
Judge Alison J. Nathan also explained what defendants could do if plaintiffs amended: answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or rely on the original motion. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- IN RE MERRILL, BOFA, AND MORGAN STANLEY SPOOFING LITIGATION · No. 1:19-cv-06002
- Victor Marrero
- Jan. 14, 2020
Background
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 13, 2020. The order did not describe the motion’s specific arguments or decide whether the complaint stated a valid claim.
Order
Under Rule 3.F. of the court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, plaintiffs had to notify the court and defendants in writing by January 23 whether they intended to file an amended pleading and when they would do so, or whether they would rely on the pleading challenged by the motion to dismiss.
The court warned that declining to amend promptly in response to arguments fully presented in defendants’ motion could waive plaintiffs’ right to use the amendment process to cure defects made apparent by defendants’ briefing. The order cited a Second Circuit decision discussing circumstances in which leave to amend may properly be denied, including undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, and futility.
If plaintiffs amended, defendants could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that they relied on the previously filed motion. The order stated that it did not change the deadlines for amending, answering, or filing a motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules.
Disposition
This was a case-management order concerning the parties’ next steps after a motion to dismiss was filed. Judge Alison J. Nathan did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.