J.T. v. de Blasio
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-05878
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In J.T. v. de Blasio, Chief Judge McMahon gave plaintiffs seven business days to address a proposed racketeering claim before deciding related dismissal and jurisdiction issues.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, including the City of New York, were affected by the court’s schedule for responding to the proposed RICO claim.
What happened
In J.T. v. de Blasio, the plaintiffs sought permission to add a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against every school district in the United States. The court had previously denied permission to amend while pending dismissal motions and other court orders were being addressed.
The City of New York argued in a reply brief that the proposed racketeering claim was legally insufficient. The court said that issue could affect whether claims against most defendants should be dismissed because the court lacked authority over them personally.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon gave the plaintiffs seven business days, until October 29, 2020, to respond to the argument. The order did not decide whether the racketeering claim was legally sufficient or whether any claims should be dismissed.
The detailed version
- J.T. v. de Blasio · No. 1:20-cv-05878
- Colleen McMahon
- Oct. 19, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs asked for permission to file an amended complaint adding a claim against every school district in the United States under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968. Judge McMahon had denied permission to amend because motions to dismiss were pending and the court had issued several orders requiring responses before considering a possible amendment.
The plaintiffs had apparently raised the possibility of a RICO claim with the judge handling preliminary matters and had filed a RICO case statement, but they had not filed an amended complaint. The opinion states that, under Judge McMahon’s RICO case standing order, the court treats the RICO case statement as part of the complaint when deciding a motion to dismiss. The City of New York therefore argued in its reply brief that the RICO claim described in that statement was legally insufficient.
Court’s Action
The court explained that when an issue is raised for the first time in a reply brief, it may either disregard the issue or give the opposing party an opportunity to respond. Because the viability of the proposed RICO claim might affect whether claims against most defendants could be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, the court directed the plaintiffs to address the claim’s sufficiency.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon gave the plaintiffs seven business days, until October 29, 2020, to file their response. She stated that she would decide later whether further argument from the City of New York was needed. The order did not rule on the sufficiency of the RICO claim, personal jurisdiction, or the pending motions to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.