Paraco Gas Corporation v. Ion Bank
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-04971
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Paraco Gas v. Ion Bank, Judge Briccetti ordered Paraco Gas to choose whether to amend its complaint before the bank’s dismissal motion proceeds.
Paraco Gas Corporation had to choose whether to amend its complaint, and Ion Bank’s next filing options depended on that choice.
What happened
Paraco Gas Corporation v. Ion Bank concerns a case that Ion Bank removed from a Westchester County court on June 29, 2020. Ion Bank later moved to dismiss Paraco Gas’s complaint on August 20, 2020.
The court ordered Paraco Gas to tell the court by September 2, 2020, whether it would file an amended complaint or rely on its existing complaint. The order did not decide Ion Bank’s motion to dismiss or the merits of the dispute.
Judge Briccetti ordered that, if Paraco Gas amended its complaint, it had to do so within 14 days after notifying the court. Within 21 days after the amendment, Ion Bank could answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or notify the court that it would rely on its original motion.
The detailed version
- Paraco Gas Corporation v. Ion Bank · No. 7:20-cv-04971
- Vincent Briccetti
- Aug. 24, 2020
Background
Ion Bank removed the case from Supreme Court, Westchester County, on June 29, 2020. On August 20, 2020, Ion Bank moved to dismiss Paraco Gas Corporation’s complaint.
Order
The court ordered Paraco Gas to notify the court by September 2, 2020, whether it intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion to dismiss or would rely on the complaint already filed.
If Paraco Gas chose not to amend, the motion to dismiss would proceed under the regular schedule. The court also stated that it was unlikely to give Paraco Gas another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies made apparent by the fully briefed motion arguments.
If Paraco Gas chose to amend, it had to file the amended complaint no later than 14 days after notifying the court. Within 21 days after the amendment, Ion Bank could file an answer, file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that it would rely on its original motion. The deadlines for opposing and reply papers remained governed by the court’s July 2, 2020 order.
Effect of the Order
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti’s order set a deadline and procedure for responding to the motion to dismiss. It did not grant or deny the motion, resolve whether the complaint stated a claim, or decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.