Bai v. Tegs Management, LLC
- Denise Cote
- 1:20-cv-04942
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bai v. Tegs Management, LLC, Judge Nathan ordered Bai to say whether he would amend his complaint after defendants moved to dismiss.
Shixu Bai, Tegs Management, LLC, and Grand Market International Corp.
What happened
In Bai v. Tegs Management, LLC, Tegs Management, LLC and Grand Market International Corp. asked the court to dismiss the case. The opinion does not describe the claims or the arguments in that motion.
The court gave Shixu Bai until October 15, 2020, to tell the court and the defendants whether he would file an amended complaint or rely on his existing complaint. The order warned that declining to amend in response to fully briefed arguments could waive the opportunity to fix defects identified in the motion.
Judge Alison J. Nathan did not decide the motion to dismiss. The order explains that, if Bai amended his complaint, the defendants could answer, file a new dismissal motion, or rely on their original motion.
The detailed version
- Bai v. Tegs Management, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-04942
- Denise Cote
- Oct. 7, 2020
Background
On October 5, 2020, Tegs Management, LLC and Grand Market International Corp. filed a motion to dismiss. The opinion does not state the claims, the grounds for dismissal, or the relief requested in that motion.
Order
Under Rule 3.F of the court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, Shixu Bai had to notify the court and the defendants in writing by October 15, 2020, whether he intended to file an amended pleading and when he would do so, or whether he would rely on the pleading challenged by the defendants' motion.
The court warned that if Bai declined to amend in a timely response to a fully briefed argument in the defendants' motion, that decision could waive his right to use the amendment process to correct defects made apparent by the defendants' briefing. The order cited a prior appellate decision concerning circumstances in which leave to amend may properly be denied, including undue delay, bad faith, a dilatory motive, or futility.
If Bai amended his pleading, 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 also 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.
Disposition
Judge Alison J. Nathan issued a case-management order concerning the pending motion to dismiss. The order did not grant or deny that motion and did not decide the merits of any claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.