Paguada v. Acme Lumber & Supply Co., Inc.
- Alison Nathan
- 1:20-cv-07702
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Paguada v. Acme Lumber, Judge Nathan set a deadline for Plaintiff to say whether she would amend her pleading or rely on it against Defendant’s dismissal motion.
The order directly affected Plaintiff Dilenia Paguada and Defendant Acme Lumber & Supply Co., Inc. Plaintiff received a December 30, 2020 deadline to choose between amending her pleading and relying on the challenged pleading; if she amended, Defendant received specified options for responding.
What happened
In Paguada v. Acme Lumber & Supply Co., Inc., the defendant filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s pleading. The court did not decide that motion in this order.
The court ordered Plaintiff Dilenia Paguada to notify the court and the defendant in writing by December 30, 2020, whether she would file an amended pleading or rely on the pleading challenged by the motion.
Judge Alison J. Nathan warned that declining to amend in response to fully briefed arguments could result in waiving the right to use amendment to cure defects identified in the defendant’s briefing. If Plaintiff amended, the defendant could answer, file a new dismissal motion, or rely on its original motion.
The detailed version
- Paguada v. Acme Lumber & Supply Co., Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-07702
- Alison Nathan
- Dec. 18, 2020
Background
On December 17, 2020, Acme Lumber & Supply Co., Inc. filed a motion to dismiss. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the arguments in that motion.
Order
Under Rule 3.F of the court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, the court required Dilenia Paguada to notify the court and the defendant in writing by December 30, 2020, whether she intended to file an amended pleading and when she would do so, or whether she would rely on the pleading challenged by the motion to dismiss.
The court warned that declining to amend in a timely response to a fully briefed argument could constitute a waiver of the right to use the amendment process to cure defects made apparent by the defendant’s briefing. The order cited a Second Circuit decision discussing circumstances in which leave to amend may properly be denied, including undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, and futility.
If Plaintiff amended the pleading, the defendant could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that it relied on the initially filed motion. The order stated that it did not alter the deadlines for amending, answering, or moving under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules.
Disposition
This order set a response and pleading-amendment procedure; it did not grant or deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss and did not resolve the merits of the parties’ dispute. Judge Alison J. Nathan issued the order on December 18, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.