Cotto v. Federal National Mortgage Association
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-06487
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cotto v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Judge Vyskocil ordered defendants to state whether they consented to mediation, amendment, and remand.
Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association and REO Integration, Inc. were required to file a letter stating whether they consented to Plaintiff Eric S. Cotto’s requests for mediation, amendment of the complaint, and remand to state court. The requests and the motion to dismiss remained unresolved.
What happened
Cotto v. Federal National Mortgage Association concerns Plaintiff Eric S. Cotto’s requests to send the case to mediation, amend his complaint, and return the case to state court. Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association and REO Integration, Inc. had filed a motion to dismiss.
Because more than 21 days had passed after the motion to dismiss was filed and defendants had not agreed in writing to an amendment, the court’s permission was required for Cotto to amend his complaint. The opinion does not decide whether the complaint may be amended, whether the case will go to mediation, or whether it will return to state court.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered defendants to file a letter by November 17, 2020, stating whether they consented to each of Cotto’s three requests. The order did not rule on the pending motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Cotto v. Federal National Mortgage Association · No. 1:20-cv-06487
- Vyskocil
- Nov. 13, 2020
Background
On October 12, 2020, Federal National Mortgage Association and REO Integration, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On November 6, 2020, Eric S. Cotto asked the court to refer the case to the Southern District of New York’s Mediation Program, allow him to amend the complaint, and remand, or return, the action to state court.
Amendment Standard
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally allows a party to amend a pleading once without court permission within specified 21-day periods. After those periods, amendment requires either the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s permission. The court also noted that permission to amend should generally be given unless there is undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice, or futility.
The court found that more than 21 days had passed since defendants filed their motion to dismiss and that defendants had not provided written consent. Therefore, Cotto needed the court’s permission to amend the complaint.
Order
The court ordered defendants to file, by November 17, 2020, a letter stating whether they consented to each of Cotto’s requests: referral to mediation, amendment of the complaint, and remand to state court. The opinion does not grant or deny those requests and does not rule on the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.