Bates v. Union Square Hospitality Group, LLC

Background

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 11, 2020. This order addressed the next procedural step and did not rule on whether the complaint should be dismissed.

Order

Under Rule 3.F. of the court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, John Bates had to notify the court and the defendants in writing by November 23, 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 motion to dismiss.

The court warned that if Bates declined to amend and did not timely respond to a fully briefed argument identified in the defendants’ briefing, that choice could be treated as giving up the opportunity to use the amendment process to correct defects made apparent by the briefing. The order cited a Second Circuit decision concerning circumstances that can support denying permission to amend, including undue delay, bad faith, a dilatory motive, and futility.

If Bates amended, the defendants could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that they relied on the original motion. The order 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 entered the order governing Bates’s response to the pending motion to dismiss. The opinion does not state that the motion to dismiss was granted or denied.