Lurch v. The City of New York
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-11254
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lurch v. The City of New York, Judge Wang ordered supplemental briefing on probable cause for Lurch’s arrest, without deciding the motion to dismiss.
The City of New York must submit supplemental briefing about probable cause for Robert Derek Lurch, Jr.’s arrest. Lurch may respond but is not required to do so.
What happened
In Robert Derek Lurch, Jr. v. The City of New York, et al., the court ordered the City to provide more written argument about whether there was probable cause for Lurch’s November 25, 2019 arrest. The City’s motion to dismiss was not decided in this order.
The City must submit its supplemental filing by December 3, 2020, and may attach exhibits. The order also directed the City to consider a prior case involving false-arrest claims and New York’s Mental Hygiene Law. Lurch, who was representing himself, may respond within two weeks after receiving the City’s filing, but does not have to do so.
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang issued the order on November 19, 2020, and directed the Clerk of Court to mail it to Lurch.
The detailed version
- Lurch v. The City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-11254
- Valerie Caproni
- Nov. 19, 2020
Order
The court directed the City of New York to submit supplemental briefing concerning its motion to dismiss. The supplemental briefing must address whether there was probable cause for Robert Derek Lurch, Jr.’s November 25, 2019 arrest. The City may attach exhibits.
False-Arrest Authority
The court directed the City to consult Heller v. Bedford Central School District, a prior Southern District of New York decision concerning false-arrest claims related to New York Mental Hygiene Law § 941.
Plaintiff’s Response
The order states that Lurch was representing himself. He may, but is not required to, submit a response within two weeks after the City serves its supplemental briefing.
Disposition
The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss. It required additional briefing and allowed, but did not require, a response from Lurch. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to him.
Procedural Context
The order notes that, when deciding a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court ordinarily considers the factual allegations in the complaint. It also explains that the court may consider certain documents referenced by or integral to the complaint. Those notes provide context for the City’s possible exhibits but do not resolve the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.