Acevedo v. Harvard Maintenance Company
- Alison Nathan
- 1:20-cv-00721
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Acevedo v. Harvard Maintenance Company, Judge Nathan gave plaintiff Marcos Acevedo until June 26, 2020, to amend or oppose the dismissal motion.
Marcos Acevedo, who was given an extended deadline to amend his complaint or oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the defendants, whose response and reply deadlines were set.
What happened
In Acevedo v. Harvard Maintenance Company, the defendants filed a motion asking the court to dismiss Marcos Acevedo’s complaint. Because Acevedo was proceeding without a lawyer, the court gave him additional time to amend his complaint.
The court ordered that Acevedo must file an amended complaint by June 26, 2020, if he wanted to amend. Any amended complaint would replace the original and would need to explain why he was entitled to relief against each defendant. If he did not amend, he had to serve his opposition to the dismissal motion by the same date. The defendants could then reply by July 10, 2020.
Judge Nathan’s order set deadlines and explained the parties’ next steps; it did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Either party could request an extension by showing diligence and a good reason.
The detailed version
- Acevedo v. Harvard Maintenance Company · No. 1:20-cv-00721
- Alison Nathan
- May 8, 2020
Background
On May 4, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A Rule 12(b) motion asks the court to dismiss a complaint on specified legal grounds. The opinion does not state which Rule 12(b) grounds the defendants raised.
Order
The court explained that Rule 15(a)(1)(B) generally gives a plaintiff 21 days after service of a Rule 12(b) motion to amend the complaint once without asking the court for permission. Because Marcos Acevedo was proceeding without a lawyer, the court gave him additional time. If he intended to amend, he had to file the amended complaint by June 26, 2020.
The court stated that an amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint. It directed Acevedo to include all information he believed necessary to provide a short, plain explanation of why he was entitled to relief against each defendant. The court also warned that failing to amend in response to fully briefed arguments in the defendants’ motion could result in waiver of the opportunity to use the amendment process to correct defects identified in that briefing.
Further briefing
If Acevedo filed an amended complaint, the defendants could answer it, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that they intended to rely on their original motion. If he did not file an amended complaint, he had to serve his opposition to the pending motion by June 26, 2020. The defendants’ reply, if any, was due by July 10, 2020. When serving any reply, the defendants also had to provide the court’s chambers with a courtesy copy of all motion papers.
Either party could request an extension of the briefing schedule by showing that the party had pursued the case diligently and had a good reason for an extension. The Clerk’s Office was directed to mail the order to Acevedo and record service on the docket.
Disposition
The order set an amendment and briefing schedule. It did not grant or deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.