Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 17, 2020

Harty v. West Point Realty, Inc.

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:19-cv-08800
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Harty v. West Point Realty, Inc., Judge Briccetti directed plaintiff to choose whether to amend his complaint after defendant moved to dismiss.

Who this affects

Owen Harty had to choose whether to amend his complaint, and West Point Realty, Inc. received specified options and deadlines for responding if he amended.

What happened

In Harty v. West Point Realty, Inc., the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on January 16, 2020.

The court ordered the plaintiff to notify it by January 27 whether he would file an amended complaint or rely on the existing complaint.

Judge Briccetti stated that an amended complaint would be due within 14 days after that notice, and the defendant would then have 21 days to respond. 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
Harty v. West Point Realty, Inc. · No. 7:19-cv-08800
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Jan. 17, 2020

Background

On January 16, 2020, West Point Realty, Inc. moved to dismiss Owen Harty's complaint.

Order

The court ordered Harty to notify the court by January 27, 2020, whether he intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion or would rely on the complaint already filed.

If Harty chose not to amend, the motion to dismiss would proceed under the ordinary schedule. The court stated that it was unlikely to give Harty another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies made apparent by the fully argued motion.

If Harty chose to amend, he was required to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court. Within 21 days after the amendment, West Point Realty could answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that it would rely on its original motion to dismiss.

Disposition

The order set procedures for responding to the pending motion to dismiss; it did not grant or deny that motion. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order on January 17, 2020.

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.