Arroyave v. Universal Remote Control, Inc.
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-08040
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Arroyave v. Universal Remote Control, Judge Briccetti gave plaintiff 10 days to choose amendment before defendants’ dismissal motion proceeds.
Sonia Arroyave and defendants Universal Remote Control, Inc., Jin Chang, and Chang Park.
What happened
In Arroyave v. Universal Remote Control, Inc., the defendants moved to dismiss Sonia Arroyave’s complaint on November 30, 2020.
The court ordered Arroyave to notify it by December 10 whether she would file an amended complaint or rely on the existing complaint. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti explained that, if Arroyave amended, the defendants could answer, move to dismiss the amended complaint, or rely on their original motion. If she did not amend, the motion would proceed under the ordinary schedule.
The detailed version
- Arroyave v. Universal Remote Control, Inc. · No. 7:20-cv-08040
- Vincent Briccetti
- Dec. 1, 2020
Background
On November 30, 2020, Universal Remote Control, Inc., Jin Chang, and Chang Park moved to dismiss Sonia Arroyave’s complaint. The opinion does not describe the complaint’s claims or the alleged facts.
Order
The court ordered Arroyave to notify the court by December 10, 2020, whether she intended to file an amended complaint in response to the motion or would rely on the complaint already filed. The court warned that, if she chose not to amend, the motion would proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules, and the court was unlikely to grant another opportunity to amend based on deficiencies identified in the fully briefed motion.
If Arroyave chose to amend, she had to file the amended complaint within 14 days after notifying the court. Within 21 days after the amendment, the defendants could answer, file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, or notify the court that they were relying on the original motion. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not resolve the merits of the case.
Effect
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti’s order set the parties’ next procedural steps; it did not determine whether Arroyave’s complaint stated a valid claim.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.