Norman v. City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-05560
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Norman v. City of New York, Judge Broderick ordered the pro se plaintiff to oppose defendants’ pending dismissal motion within 30 days.
The order primarily affects Shomari E. Norman, who must respond to the pending motion to dismiss, and the defendants, who may file a reply afterward.
What happened
Norman v. City of New York concerns an amended complaint filed while defendants’ motion to dismiss was pending. Defendants asked the court to evaluate their existing motion using the amended complaint rather than file a new motion.
The court ordered the plaintiff to file any opposition to the motion within 30 days. It warned that failing to respond could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute, but it did not dismiss the case in this order.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick also ordered defendants to file a reply within 14 days after the plaintiff’s opposition. The clerk was directed to mail the order and two other docket documents to the pro se plaintiff.
The detailed version
- Norman v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-05560
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 4, 2020
Background
On August 31, 2020, Shomari E. Norman filed an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), while defendants’ motion to dismiss was still pending. The court explained that, after a proper amendment, it may either deny the pending motion as moot or evaluate the motion using the facts alleged in the amended complaint.
On September 3, 2020, defendants notified the court that they wanted the court to evaluate their existing motion in light of the amended complaint. Defendants stated that they would not file a renewed motion to dismiss. The order also cited the rule that a court may generally treat a claim as abandoned when a plaintiff does not respond to arguments that the claim should be dismissed.
Order
The court ordered Norman to file any opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss within 30 days of the order. The court warned that failure to oppose could result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court did not dismiss the action or decide the motion to dismiss in this order.
The court further ordered defendants to file a reply within 14 days after Norman filed an opposition. The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order and Documents 15 and 30 to Norman, whom the order identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.