Matec SRL v. Gramercy Holdings I, LLC

Background

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 11, 2020. The order addressed the plaintiff’s response to that motion, the service of process on Defendant Luca Martinelli, and the case schedule.

Order Regarding Amendment

Under the court’s individual practices, the plaintiff had to notify the court and the opposing side in writing by August 24 whether it intended to file an amended pleading and when it would do so, or whether it would rely on the pleading challenged by the motion to dismiss. The court warned that declining to amend in response to fully briefed arguments might waive the plaintiff’s ability to use amendment to correct defects identified in the defendants’ briefing.

If the plaintiff amended, the defendants could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that they relied on their 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.

Service and Scheduling

The court noted that no affidavit of service had been filed for Luca Martinelli and directed the plaintiffs to file one by August 24. The court also adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for October 30 pending resolution of the motion to dismiss.

Disposition

The order did not decide the motion to dismiss: it neither granted nor denied that motion. It instead set instructions concerning amendment and service and postponed the initial pretrial conference. Judge Alison J. Nathan issued the order.