Ruilova v. 443 Lexington Ave, Inc.

Background

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 12, 2020. The order addressed how plaintiffs should respond to that motion under Rule 3.F of the court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases.

Order

The court directed plaintiffs to notify the court and defendants in writing whether they intended to file an amended pleading and when they would do so, or whether they would rely on the pleading challenged by the motion. The order warned that declining to amend in response to a fully briefed argument could waive plaintiffs’ ability to use the amendment process to correct defects identified in defendants’ briefing.

If plaintiffs amended, defendants could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that they relied on the original motion. The court stated that the order did not alter the deadlines for amending, answering, or filing a motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the local rules.

Disposition and significance

The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of the parties’ claims. Judge Alison J. Nathan issued a procedural directive about the parties’ next steps.

Date note

The supplied case information gives a filing date of March 16, 2020. The opinion’s date line is partially garbled, while the body states a response deadline of March 23, 2019, which appears inconsistent with the 2020 dates but is reproduced here only as a discrepancy in the text.