Feinberg v. Land
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-03410
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Feinberg v. Land, Judge Furman denied earlier motions as moot, denied one defendant’s attempt to dismiss claims for others, and ordered proof of service.
Herbert Feinberg had to file proof of service for Nathaniel F. Land, South Dale Mabry Storage, and Corporation Service Company. The order also affected Sangita Land, referred to in the caption as Sangita Shah, by denying her earlier motions as moot and denying her new motion to the extent it sought dismissal on behalf of other defendants.
What happened
In Feinberg v. Land, Plaintiff Herbert Feinberg filed a second amended complaint, followed by a new motion to dismiss from Defendant Sangita Land. The order also addressed earlier motions filed by Ms. Land.
The court denied Ms. Land’s earlier motion to dismiss and motion to strike as moot. It denied the new motion to dismiss to the extent Ms. Land sought dismissal on behalf of Nathaniel Land, South Dale Mabry Storage, and Corporation Service Company. The court also found no docket evidence that those three defendants had been properly served and ordered Feinberg to file proof of service.
Judge Jesse M. Furman required proof of service by January 31, 2020, warning that failure could lead to sanctions, including dismissal for failure to serve or prosecute. The court set deadlines for briefing on the new motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk to terminate several docket entries.
The detailed version
- Feinberg v. Land · No. 1:19-cv-03410
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 24, 2020
Background
Herbert Feinberg filed a second amended complaint. In response, Sangita Land filed a new motion to dismiss. The order also addressed an earlier motion to dismiss and a motion to strike filed by Ms. Land.
The caption identifies one defendant as Sangita Shah, while the body of the order refers to that defendant as Sangita Land. This summary follows the order’s wording where necessary and does not resolve the discrepancy.
Rulings and deadlines
The court denied Ms. Land’s earlier motion to dismiss and motion to strike as moot because of the second amended complaint and the new motion to dismiss. “Moot” means that the court did not need to decide those earlier motions because later filings had superseded them.
To the extent Ms. Land’s new motion to dismiss sought dismissal on behalf of defendants other than herself, the court denied the motion. The court reiterated that Ms. Land could not represent Nathaniel Land. It also stated that Corporation Service Company and South Dale Mabry Storage, as corporate entities, could appear in federal court only through licensed counsel.
The court found that the docket did not show that Nathaniel Land, Corporation Service Company, and South Dale Mabry Storage had been properly served with the second amended complaint. It ordered Feinberg to file proof of service by January 31, 2020, and warned that failure to do so could result in sanctions, including dismissal for failure to serve or failure to prosecute.
Remaining motion schedule and case administration
Feinberg’s opposition to the new motion to dismiss was due February 24, 2020. Ms. Land’s reply, if any, was due March 9, 2020. The court also required Ms. Land to provide a double-sided courtesy copy of all motion papers when serving any reply. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 30, 33, 37, and 42.
Judge Jesse M. Furman issued the order on January 24, 2020. The order addressed motions and service requirements; it did not decide the underlying claims in the second amended complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.