Chen v. McAleenan
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-09951
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chen v. McAleenan, Judge Nathan ordered Chen to say whether he will amend his pleading after defendants moved to dismiss.
Baisheng Chen had to choose and report whether to amend his pleading or rely on it by January 24, 2020. The defendants could respond in one of three ways if Chen amended.
What happened
In Chen v. McAleenan, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 14, 2020. The order does not describe the underlying claims or decide whether the motion should be granted.
The court required Baisheng Chen to notify the court and the defendants by January 24, 2020, whether he would file an amended pleading or rely on his existing pleading. The order warned that declining to amend in response to fully briefed arguments could later affect his ability to use the amendment process to fix identified defects.
Judge Alison J. Nathan also explained that, if Chen amended his pleading, the defendants could answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or state that they relied on their original motion. The order did not change the deadlines under the federal or local rules.
The detailed version
- Chen v. McAleenan · No. 1:19-cv-09951
- Alison Nathan
- Jan. 16, 2020
Background
On January 14, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The opinion does not state the claims at issue or provide the defendants’ arguments.
Order
Under Rule 3.F of the court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, Baisheng Chen had to notify the court and the defendants in writing by January 24, 2020, whether he intended to file an amended pleading and when, or whether he would rely on the pleading challenged by the motion to dismiss.
The court warned that declining to amend promptly in response to a fully briefed argument in the motion could constitute a waiver of Chen’s ability to use the amendment process to cure defects made apparent by the defendants’ briefing. The order cited a prior appellate decision concerning circumstances in which leave to amend may properly be denied, including undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, and futility.
If Chen amended his pleading, the defendants could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that they relied on their initial motion. The order stated that it did not alter the time to amend, answer, or move under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules.
Disposition
The court entered a case-management order concerning Chen’s response to the pending motion to dismiss. It did not grant or deny that motion and did not decide the merits of the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.