Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 21, 2020

Nixon v. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.

Judge
Alison Nathan
Docket
1:20-cv-02253
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Nixon v. Berkshire Hathaway, Judge Nathan ordered Plaintiff to state whether he would amend his pleading or rely on it.

Who this affects

Donald Nixon and Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.; the scheduled initial pretrial conference was also affected.

What happened

In Nixon v. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., Berkshire Hathaway had filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the case.

The court required Donald Nixon to notify the court and Berkshire Hathaway by April 27, 2020, whether he would file an amended pleading or rely on his existing pleading.

Judge Alison J. Nathan warned that declining to amend could waive the opportunity to fix defects identified in the motion, allowed Berkshire Hathaway several response options if Nixon amended, and postponed the initial pretrial conference.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Nixon v. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-02253
Judge
Alison Nathan
Date
Apr. 21, 2020

Background

Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss on April 17, 2020. The order does not decide that motion.

Order

Under the court's individual practices, Donald Nixon had to notify the court and Berkshire Hathaway in writing by April 27, 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 the motion to dismiss.

The court warned that declining to amend in response to a fully briefed argument could constitute a waiver of Nixon's right to use the amendment process to correct defects identified in Berkshire Hathaway's briefing. The court noted that denial of permission to amend may still be appropriate for reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, a dilatory motive, or futility.

If Nixon amended his pleading, Berkshire Hathaway could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that it relied on its original motion. The order stated that it did not change the deadlines for amending, answering, or moving under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court's local rules. It also adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for August 7, 2020, pending resolution of the motion.

Disposition

Judge Alison J. Nathan issued a case-management order concerning the pending motion to dismiss. The order did not grant or deny the motion and did not resolve the merits of the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.