DeJesus v. Rudolph
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-04480
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In DeJesus v. Rudolph, Judge Broderick ordered Alex DeJesus to amend or oppose defendants’ dismissal motion by May 29, warning of dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Alex DeJesus and the defendants in the action, including Stephanie Rudolph and the Commission of Human Rights.
What happened
DeJesus v. Rudolph concerns defendants’ motion to dismiss Alex DeJesus’s amended complaint. The opinion does not decide whether that motion should be granted.
Defendants filed the motion on April 20, 2020. DeJesus neither filed another amended complaint nor opposed the motion. The court gave him until May 29, 2020, to do one of those things.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick warned that failing to amend or oppose the motion would result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- DeJesus v. Rudolph · No. 1:19-cv-04480
- Vernon Broderick
- May 20, 2020
Background
Defendants Stephanie Rudolph, the Commission of Human Rights, and others filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 20, 2020. The opinion states that Alex DeJesus did not amend the operative complaint in response to the motion and did not oppose it.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) allows a plaintiff 21 days after being served with a motion under Rule 12(b) to amend the complaint once as a matter of course. The court also noted that a claim may generally be treated as abandoned when a plaintiff does not respond to arguments that the claim should be dismissed.
Order
The court ordered DeJesus to either file an amended complaint or file a memorandum of law opposing defendants’ motion to dismiss by May 29, 2020. The court warned that failure to do either would result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.