Butler v. City School District of New Rochelle
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-07395
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Butler v. City School District of New Rochelle, Judge Briccetti gave Butler a choice to amend her complaint before the defendants’ dismissal motion proceeds.
Fredericka Butler and defendants City School District of New Rochelle, Magda Parvey, Joseph Williams, and John Barnes; the order set deadlines for Butler’s response and amended complaint and for defendants’ next filing.
What happened
Defendants City School District of New Rochelle, Magda Parvey, Joseph Williams, and John Barnes filed a motion asking the court to dismiss Fredericka Butler’s complaint. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the reasons for dismissal.
The court ordered Butler to notify it by January 27, 2020, whether she would file an amended complaint or rely on her existing complaint. If she amended, she had 14 days after notifying the court to file it, and defendants then had 21 days to answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or rely on their existing motion.
Judge Briccetti did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order. He stated that the motion would proceed if Butler relied on her existing complaint, warned that another opportunity to amend was unlikely, and canceled the February 21, 2020 conference.
The detailed version
- Butler v. City School District of New Rochelle · No. 7:19-cv-07395
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 21, 2020
Background
Fredericka Butler sued the City School District of New Rochelle, Magda Parvey individually, Joseph Williams individually, and John Barnes individually. On January 17, 2020, the defendants filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which seeks dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The order does not identify Butler’s claims or otherwise describe the motion’s arguments.
Order
The court ordered Butler to notify it by letter no later than January 27, 2020, whether she intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion or would rely on the complaint already challenged by the motion.
If Butler chose not to amend, the motion would proceed under the ordinary schedule. The court stated that it was unlikely to give Butler another opportunity to amend based on deficiencies made apparent by the fully briefed motion. The court cited decisions recognizing grounds that can support denying leave to amend, including undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, and futility.
If Butler chose to amend, she had to file the amended complaint no later than 14 days after notifying the court. Within 21 days after the amendment, defendants could answer, file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that they would rely on the initial motion to dismiss. The court also canceled the conference scheduled for February 21, 2020.
Disposition and significance
This order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the sufficiency of Butler’s claims. It set a choice and deadlines concerning amendment of the complaint and canceled the scheduled conference. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered the order on January 21, 2020.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.