DeJesus v. Rudolph

Background

On April 20, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss Alex DeJesus’s amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. The opinion states that DeJesus neither amended the operative complaint in response to the motion nor opposed it.

The court explained that, under Rule 15(a)(1)(B), a plaintiff generally has 21 days after being served with a motion under Rule 12 to amend the complaint once as a matter of course. The court also cited the rule that a claim may be treated as abandoned when a plaintiff does not respond to arguments that the claim should be dismissed.

Prior deadline and noncompliance

On May 20, 2020, the court ordered DeJesus to file either an amended complaint or a memorandum opposing the motion to dismiss by May 29. The court warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. The court later granted DeJesus an extension, but he still did not comply. The opinion also states that DeJesus’s counsel told chambers staff during two phone calls that counsel would file a status update, but no status update was filed.

Order

Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered DeJesus to file either an amended complaint or a memorandum opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss by July 17, 2020. The order warns that failure to meet that deadline will result in immediate dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute. It also states that no request to extend the July 17 deadline will be granted absent exceptional circumstances.

The opinion is a scheduling and compliance order. It does not state that the court granted or denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and it does not decide the merits of the claims.