Nixon v. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.
- Alison Nathan
- 1:20-cv-02253
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nixon v. Star Furniture Company, Judge Nathan directed plaintiffs how to respond to a pending motion to dismiss.
The order affected Donald Nixon and the other plaintiffs, who had to choose how to respond by June 8, 2020, and Star Furniture Company, which could respond if the plaintiffs amended their pleading.
What happened
Donald Nixon and the other plaintiffs sued Star Furniture Company. On May 29, 2020, Star Furniture filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the complaint.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to notify the court and Star Furniture by June 8 whether they would file an amended complaint or rely on their existing pleading. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss.
Judge Alison J. Nathan warned that declining to amend in response to fully briefed arguments could affect the plaintiffs’ ability to use the amendment process later. If the plaintiffs amended, Star Furniture could answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or rely on its original motion.
The detailed version
- Nixon v. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-02253
- Alison Nathan
- June 5, 2020
Background
On May 29, 2020, Star Furniture Company filed a motion to dismiss. The order does not describe the claims or the arguments in that motion.
Order
Under Rule 3.F of the court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, the plaintiffs had to notify the court and Star Furniture in writing by June 8, 2020, whether they intended to file an amended pleading and when they would do so, or whether they would rely on the pleading challenged by the motion to dismiss.
The court warned that choosing not to amend in response to a fully briefed argument in the motion could constitute a waiver of the plaintiffs’ ability to use the amendment process to cure defects identified in the defendant’s briefing. If the plaintiffs amended, Star Furniture 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 filing a motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court’s local rules.
Disposition
The court issued scheduling and pleading instructions; it did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss. Judge Alison J. Nathan signed the order on June 5, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.