Baker v. Bensalz Productions, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-03342
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Baker v. Bensalz Productions, Judge Nathan set deadlines for responding to dismissal motions and addressed Baker’s possible self-representation.
The plaintiffs, including Belinda Baker, had to decide how to respond to the defendants’ dismissal motions. Baker also had to remain represented unless her counsel withdrew and had to meet the separate deadline for refiling her electronic-service consent if she chose to proceed without a lawyer.
What happened
In Baker v. Bensalz Productions, Inc., et al., the defendants had filed motions asking the court to dismiss the case. The court did not decide those motions in this order.
The court required the plaintiffs, by August 10, 2020, to say whether they would file an amended complaint or rely on their existing pleading. If they amended, the defendants could answer, file a new dismissal motion, or rely on their original motions. The order also stated that Belinda Baker could not proceed without a lawyer while counsel’s appearance remained in the case.
Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered that, if Baker wanted to proceed without a lawyer, her counsel must first ask to withdraw and Baker must refile her consent to electronic service by July 31, 2020. The clerk was directed to mail the order to the plaintiffs and record that mailing.
The detailed version
- Baker v. Bensalz Productions, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03342
- Lewis Liman
- July 2, 2020
Background
On June 26, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss. This order did not rule on whether those motions should be granted or denied.
Required response to the motions
Under the court’s individual practices and an earlier court directive, the plaintiffs had to notify the court and the defendants in writing by August 10, 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 defendants’ motions.
The court warned that choosing not to amend in response to fully briefed arguments could potentially waive the plaintiffs’ ability to use the amendment process to correct defects identified in the defendants’ briefing. If the plaintiffs amended, the defendants could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or state that they relied on their original motions. The order also stated that it did not change deadlines provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the local rules.
Belinda Baker’s filing status
The court noted that Belinda Baker had tried to file a consent to receive electronic service without a lawyer. Because counsel had appeared for her in the case, the court stated that she could not proceed without a lawyer unless that counsel first moved to withdraw. If Baker intended to proceed without a lawyer, counsel had to seek withdrawal and Baker had to refile her consent to electronic service by July 31, 2020.
Disposition
Judge Alison J. Nathan directed the clerk to mail the order to the plaintiffs and note the mailing on the public docket. The order set procedures and deadlines; it did not decide the pending dismissal motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.