Haider v. Lyft, Inc.

Background

Lyft filed a motion to dismiss on July 31, 2020. The order also refers to Lyft’s June 22 motion to dismiss and its fully briefed arguments. The opinion does not explain the claims or the grounds for dismissal.

Order

Under Rule 3.F. of the court’s individual practices, the court directed Plaintiff, by August 10, 2020, to notify the court and Lyft in writing whether Plaintiff intended to file an amended pleading and when, or instead intended to rely on the pleading challenged by Lyft’s motion.

The court warned that declining to amend promptly in response to a fully briefed argument could constitute a waiver of the right to amend later to correct defects identified in Lyft’s briefing. The court cited a prior appellate decision discussing circumstances in which leave to amend may properly be denied, including undue delay, bad faith, a dilatory motive, or futility.

If Plaintiff chose to amend, the order allowed Lyft to 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 moving under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court’s local rules.

Disposition and Effect

Judge Alison J. Nathan adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for August 14, 2020, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not resolve the merits of the case.