Brownstone Investment Group LLC v. Bonner & Partners, LLC
- Alison Nathan
- 1:20-cv-07351
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brownstone Investment Group v. Bonner & Partners, Judge Nathan ordered Brownstone to state whether it will amend its pleading or rely on it.
Brownstone Investment Group LLC must notify the court and the defendants whether it will amend its pleading or rely on the challenged pleading; the defendants may take one of the options listed if Brownstone amends.
What happened
Brownstone Investment Group LLC sued Bonner & Partners, LLC and others in federal court. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on December 11, 2020.
The order required Brownstone, by December 23, to tell the court and the defendants whether it intended to file an amended pleading or rely on the challenged pleading. It warned that declining to amend in response to fully briefed arguments could affect Brownstone’s later ability to amend.
Judge Alison J. Nathan did not decide the motion to dismiss. If Brownstone amends, the defendants may answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or state that they rely on their original motion.
The detailed version
- Brownstone Investment Group LLC v. Bonner & Partners, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-07351
- Alison Nathan
- Dec. 15, 2020
Background
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on December 11, 2020. The order concerns the plaintiff’s response to that motion and does not decide whether the complaint should be dismissed.
Required Notice
Under Rule 3.F of the court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, Brownstone Investment Group LLC had to notify the court and the defendants in writing by December 23, 2020, whether it would file an amended pleading and when, or whether it would rely on the pleading challenged by the motion to dismiss.
The court warned that declining to amend in response to a fully briefed argument could potentially waive the plaintiff’s ability to use the amendment process later to cure defects identified in the defendants’ briefing. The order also stated that, if Brownstone amended, the defendants could answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that they relied on the original motion. The order did not change the deadlines supplied by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules.
Disposition
Judge Alison J. Nathan issued instructions about the plaintiff’s pleading and the defendants’ options. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.