SK's Cosmetic Boutique, Inc. v. J.R. Silverberg Realty, LLC
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-02035
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In SK's Cosmetic Boutique v. J.R. Silverberg Realty, Judge Briccetti ordered plaintiffs to choose whether to amend their complaint before the dismissal motion proceeds.
The order primarily affected plaintiffs Cosmetic Boutique, Inc. and Susan Keane by requiring them to choose whether to amend their complaint. It also set response options and service obligations for defendants J.R. Silverberg Realty, LLC and the Estate of Jeroll Silverberg.
What happened
In SK's Cosmetic Boutique, Inc. v. J.R. Silverberg Realty, LLC, defendants filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the complaint based on personal jurisdiction, service of process, and failure to state a claim.
The court ordered plaintiffs to notify it by May 4, 2020, whether they would file an amended complaint or rely on the existing complaint. If plaintiffs amend, defendants may answer, file another dismissal motion, or rely on their original motion. The court did not decide the dismissal motion in this order.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also adjourned the scheduled conference without setting a new date and required defendants to serve the order on plaintiffs and file proof of service.
The detailed version
- SK's Cosmetic Boutique, Inc. v. J.R. Silverberg Realty, LLC · No. 7:20-cv-02035
- Vincent Briccetti
- Apr. 22, 2020
Background
On April 21, 2020, J.R. Silverberg Realty, LLC and the Estate of Jeroll Silverberg filed a motion to dismiss the complaint brought by Cosmetic Boutique, Inc. and Susan Keane. The motion invoked Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6), which concern personal jurisdiction, service of process, and whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.
Order
The court ordered plaintiffs to notify the court by May 4, 2020, whether they intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion or would rely on the existing complaint.
If plaintiffs chose not to amend, the dismissal motion would proceed under the regular schedule. The court stated that it was unlikely to give plaintiffs another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies made clear by the parties' briefing.
If plaintiffs chose to amend, they had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court. Within 21 days after the amendment, defendants could answer, file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that they relied on their initial motion to dismiss.
Additional directives and disposition
The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss. It set procedures for deciding whether an amended complaint would be filed and how defendants could respond. Defendants had to serve the order on plaintiffs by April 24, 2020, and file proof of service. Plaintiffs were also directed to enter their appearance on the docket. The April 29, 2020 conference was adjourned without a new date. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered the order on April 22, 2020.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.