Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 29, 2020

Ruggiero v. County Of Orange

Judge
Andrew Krause
Docket
7:20-cv-07693
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Ruggiero v. County of Orange, Judge Briccetti ordered the plaintiff to choose whether to amend his complaint or oppose the pending partial dismissal motion.

Who this affects

Francis Henry Ruggiero and the County Defendants named in the partial motion to dismiss.

What happened

In Ruggiero v. County of Orange, the County Defendants asked the court to dismiss part of Francis Henry Ruggiero’s complaint. The opinion does not decide whether that motion should be granted.

The court ordered Ruggiero to notify the court by October 5, 2020, whether he would file an amended complaint or rely on his existing complaint. If he chose to amend, he had 14 days after notifying the court to file the amended complaint.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also set deadlines for the County Defendants’ response to any amended complaint and stated that the pending motion would otherwise proceed under the applicable federal and local rules.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Ruggiero v. County Of Orange · No. 7:20-cv-07693
Judge
Andrew Krause
Date
Sept. 29, 2020

Background

Francis Henry Ruggiero sued the County of Orange, the Orange County Correctional Facility, the Orange County Sheriff’s Office, Carl E. DuBois as Orange County Sheriff, several correctional officers, Wellpath a/k/a New York Correct Care Solutions Medical Services, P.C., and a fictitious head nurse identified as Jane Doe. The County Defendants moved to dismiss part of the complaint.

Court’s order

The court did not rule on the substance of the partial motion to dismiss. Instead, it ordered Ruggiero to notify the court by October 5, 2020, whether he intended to file an amended complaint responding to the motion or would rely on the existing complaint.

If Ruggiero chose not to amend, the partial motion to dismiss would proceed in the regular course. The court stated that it was unlikely to give him another opportunity to amend based on deficiencies made apparent by the fully briefed motion. If he chose to amend, he had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court. Within 21 days after that amendment, the County Defendants could answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that they would rely on their original motion. The order did not grant or deny the partial motion to dismiss.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.