Musadique v. Barr
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-08381
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Musadique v. Barr, Judge Nathan directed Mohamed Musadique to say whether he would amend his pleading after Defendants moved to dismiss.
Mohamed Musadique and the Defendants in the case, because the order set a deadline for Musadique to choose whether to amend his pleading and described Defendants’ options if he amended it.
What happened
In Musadique v. Barr, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 1, 2020. The order did not decide that motion.
The court required Mohamed Musadique to notify the court and Defendants by April 13, 2020, whether he would file an amended pleading or rely on his existing pleading. The order warned that failing to amend in response to fully briefed arguments might waive his ability to use the amendment process to fix defects identified in Defendants’ filings.
Judge Alison J. Nathan also explained that, if Musadique amended his pleading, Defendants could answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or state that they relied on their original motion. The order did not change deadlines under the federal or local rules.
The detailed version
- Musadique v. Barr · No. 1:19-cv-08381
- Alison Nathan
- Apr. 2, 2020
Background
On April 1, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Mohamed Musadique’s pleading. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the arguments in that motion.
Order
Under Rule 3.F of the court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, the court directed Musadique to notify the court and Defendants in writing by April 13, 2020, whether he intended to file an amended pleading and when he would do so, or whether he would rely on the pleading challenged by Defendants’ motion.
The court warned that declining to amend in response to a fully briefed argument in Defendants’ motion might constitute a waiver of Musadique’s right to use the amendment process to cure defects made apparent by Defendants’ briefing. The order cited a prior appellate decision concerning circumstances in which leave to amend may properly be denied, including undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, and futility.
If Musadique amended his pleading, Defendants could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that they relied on their original motion. The court stated that the order did not alter the deadlines for amending, answering, or moving under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the local rules.
Disposition
Judge Alison J. Nathan issued a case-management order concerning amendment of the pleading and Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not resolve the merits of the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.