Cohen v. Northeast Radiology, P.C.
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-01202
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Cohen v. Northeast Radiology, Judge Briccetti ordered Cohen to choose whether to amend his complaint before defendants’ dismissal motion proceeds.
Bryan Cohen and the defendants, Northeast Radiology, P.C. and Alliance Healthcare Services, Inc.; the order set deadlines and options for responding to the pending motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Cohen v. Northeast Radiology, P.C. and Alliance Healthcare Services, Inc., the defendants moved to dismiss Bryan Cohen’s complaint on April 17, 2020.
Judge Briccetti ordered Cohen to tell the court by April 27 whether he would file an amended complaint or rely on the existing complaint. If he amended, he had 14 days after notifying the court to file it, and the defendants then had 21 days to respond.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti did not decide the dismissal motion. He ordered that the motion would proceed under the regular schedule if Cohen relied on the existing complaint and said the court was unlikely to allow another amendment later.
The detailed version
- Cohen v. Northeast Radiology, P.C. · No. 7:20-cv-01202
- Vincent Briccetti
- Apr. 20, 2020
Background
Bryan Cohen sued Northeast Radiology, P.C. and Alliance Healthcare Services, Inc., individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons. The opinion does not describe the claims in the complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on April 17, 2020.
Order
The court ordered Cohen to notify it by April 27, 2020, whether he intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion to dismiss or would rely on the complaint already filed.
If Cohen chose not to amend, the motion to dismiss would proceed under the regular schedule. The court stated that it was unlikely to grant Cohen another opportunity to amend based on deficiencies revealed by the fully briefed arguments in the defendants’ motion. The opinion cites decisions recognizing that undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, and futility can support denying leave to amend.
If Cohen chose to amend, he had to file the amended complaint no later than 14 days after notifying the court of that decision. Within 21 days after the amendment, the defendants could answer the amended complaint, file a new motion to dismiss, or notify the court that they would rely on their initial motion to dismiss. The deadlines for opposing and reply papers were otherwise governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules unless the court ordered otherwise.
Disposition
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti issued a scheduling and amendment order; he did not grant or deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of Cohen’s claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.