King v. City of Beacon Police Department
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-05815
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In King v. City of Beacon Police Department, Judge Briccetti set deadlines for responding to a pending dismissal motion and possibly amending the complaint.
The plaintiff, the defendants, plaintiff’s counsel, and defense counsel were affected by the deadlines and filing and service requirements.
What happened
In King v. City of Beacon Police Department, the defendants had moved to dismiss the complaint, and the court had not yet decided that motion.
The court ordered the plaintiff to tell the court by September 21, 2020, whether he would file an amended complaint or rely on the existing complaint. If he chose to amend, he had 14 days after notifying the court to file it. The defendants then would have 21 days to answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or rely on their original motion. Defense counsel also had to serve the order on the plaintiff’s counsel and file proof of service, while plaintiff’s counsel had to formally appear by September 21.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti warned that if the plaintiff relied on the existing complaint, the court was unlikely to allow another amendment later to address deficiencies identified in the fully argued dismissal motion. The order set procedures and deadlines but did not decide the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- King v. City of Beacon Police Department · No. 7:20-cv-05815
- Vincent Briccetti
- Sept. 15, 2020
Background
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on September 11, 2020. The order does not describe the claims or the grounds for dismissal. It states that plaintiff’s counsel had not yet formally appeared in the removed action.
Orders and deadlines
The court ordered the plaintiff to notify it by September 21, 2020, whether he intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion or would rely on the complaint being challenged.
If the plaintiff elected to file an amended complaint, he had to file it no later than 14 days after notifying the court. Within 21 days after the amendment, the defendants could file an answer, file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court by letter that they were relying on the original motion to dismiss.
If the plaintiff chose not to amend, the original motion would proceed under the ordinary briefing rules. The court stated that it was unlikely to give the plaintiff another opportunity to amend based on deficiencies identified by the fully briefed motion. The order also required defense counsel, by September 16, to serve the order on plaintiff’s counsel and file proof of service. Plaintiff’s counsel had to file a notice of appearance by September 21.
Disposition
The court did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss. It entered an order governing the plaintiff’s amendment choice, counsel’s appearance, service, and subsequent briefing. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.