Medina v. City Of New York
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-09412
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Medina v. City of New York, Judge Nathan ordered Medina to notify the court whether he would amend his complaint after defendants moved to dismiss.
Tomas Medina and the defendants, including the City of New York and the individual defendants named in the order.
What happened
In Medina v. City of New York, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint on January 31, 2020.
The court ordered the plaintiff to notify the court and the defendants by February 10 whether he intended to file an amended complaint or would rely on the existing complaint. If he amended, the defendants could answer, file another motion to dismiss, or rely on their original motion.
Judge Alison J. Nathan warned that declining to amend in response to fully briefed arguments could affect the plaintiff’s ability to later use the amendment process to fix defects. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Medina v. City Of New York · No. 1:19-cv-09412
- Alison Nathan
- Feb. 3, 2020
Background
On January 31, 2020, the City of New York and the individual defendants named in the order filed a motion to dismiss Tomas Medina’s complaint. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Order
Under Rule 3.F of the court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, the court required Medina, by February 10, 2020, to notify both the court and the defendants in writing whether he would: (1) file an amended pleading and state when he would do so; or (2) rely on the pleading challenged by the motion to dismiss.
The court warned that declining to amend in response to a fully briefed argument in the motion could potentially waive Medina’s ability to use the amendment process to cure defects identified in the defendants’ briefing. If Medina amended, the defendants could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that they relied on the original motion.
Effect of the Order
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 court’s Local Rules. Judge Alison J. Nathan did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss, and the order did not resolve the merits of Medina’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.