Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 5, 2021

Pierre v. City Of New York

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:20-cv-05116
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Pierre v. City Of New York, Judge Carter allowed defendants to use the agreements and set deadlines for a motion to dismiss.

Who this affects

Burbran Pierre and the other proposed class members, as well as the defendants, because the court determined which documents could be considered and established the schedule and page limits for a motion to dismiss.

What happened

Pierre v. City Of New York concerns a complaint brought by Burbran Pierre on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against the City of New York and other defendants.

The court decided that the Participation Agreements were closely connected to the complaint and could be considered at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court did not decide whether the claims were legally valid.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted defendants permission to file a motion to dismiss and set deadlines of January 26, February 9, and February 16, 2021, for the opening brief, opposition, and reply. The court also set page limits for the briefs.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Pierre v. City Of New York · No. 1:20-cv-05116
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Jan. 5, 2021

Background

On November 17, 2020, the court held a telephone conference before a possible motion to dismiss. The court directed the defendants to submit the Participation Agreements mentioned in their conference letter and directed the parties to file a joint status report addressing whether the agreements could properly be considered at that stage of the litigation. The defendants filed the agreements on November 19, 2020, and the parties filed the status report on December 1, 2020.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the Participation Agreements were “integral” to the complaint. In this context, that meant the complaint relied heavily on the agreements’ terms and effects. The court stated that the complaint relied heavily on the effects of the agreements, which govern the relationship between the Vendor Defendants and the New York City Police Department. Because the agreements were integral to the complaint, the court would consider them when addressing a motion to dismiss.

Ruling and Schedule

The court granted defendants leave to file a motion to dismiss. It set January 26, 2021, for the opening brief, February 9, 2021, for plaintiff’s opposition brief, and February 16, 2021, for defendants’ reply brief. The court allowed 45 pages for defendants’ opening brief, 45 pages for plaintiff’s opposition brief, and 15 pages for defendants’ reply brief. Andrew L. Carter, Jr., United States District Judge, signed the order. The opinion does not decide the merits of the claims or the motion to dismiss.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.