Lurch, Jr. v. The City of New York
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-11253
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lurch, Jr. v. The City of New York, Judge Nathan set deadlines for amendment or opposition to Kimpton Muse Hotel’s dismissal motion.
Robert Derek Lurch, Jr. and Kimpton Muse Hotel, particularly their deadlines for amending the complaint or briefing the motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Lurch, Jr. v. The City of New York, Kimpton Muse Hotel filed a motion asking to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b) on February 6, 2020. The court did not decide that motion in this order.
Because Robert Derek Lurch, Jr. was proceeding without a lawyer, the court gave him until March 6, 2020, to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint would replace the original and would need to explain why he was entitled to relief against each defendant.
Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered that, if no amended complaint was filed, Lurch had to serve his opposition by March 6, 2020, and Kimpton could serve a reply by March 20, 2020. The order also allowed either party to request an extension for a good reason and required that a copy be mailed to Lurch.
The detailed version
- Lurch, Jr. v. The City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-11253
- Alison Nathan
- Feb. 7, 2020
Background
On February 6, 2020, Defendant Kimpton Muse Hotel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The opinion does not identify the specific Rule 12(b) subsection or decide the merits of the motion.
Amendment deadline
Rule 15(a)(1)(B) generally gives a plaintiff 21 days after service of a Rule 12(b) motion to amend the complaint once without asking the court for permission. Because Plaintiff Robert Derek Lurch, Jr. was proceeding without a lawyer, the court gave him additional time. It ordered that, if he intended to amend, he had to file the amended complaint by March 6, 2020.
The court explained that an amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint. It instructed Lurch to include all information he believed necessary to make a short, plain statement explaining why he was entitled to relief against each defendant. The court also warned that failing to amend in response to arguments fully presented in Kimpton’s motion might waive the opportunity to use amendment to correct defects identified in that briefing.
Briefing schedule if no amendment
If Lurch did not file an amended complaint, he had to serve his opposition to Kimpton’s motion by March 6, 2020. Kimpton could serve a reply by March 20, 2020, and at that time had to provide the judge’s chambers with a courtesy copy of all motion papers by mail or delivery to the United States Courthouse at 40 Foley Square, New York, New York.
Either party could request an extension of the briefing schedule. The court stated that an extension would be granted if the requesting party showed diligence in pursuing the case and a good reason for the extension. Chambers was also directed to mail a copy of the order to Lurch and note that mailing on the docket.
Disposition
Judge Alison J. Nathan issued a scheduling and case-management order. The order did not grant or deny Kimpton Muse Hotel’s motion to dismiss, did not dismiss any claim, and did not resolve the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.