E.G. v. City of New York
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-09879
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In E.G. v. City of New York, Judge Nathan required plaintiffs to state whether they will amend their pleading or rely on it.
The plaintiffs and defendants in E.G. v. City of New York, particularly the plaintiffs’ ability to amend their pleading and the defendants’ options after any amendment.
What happened
E.G. v. City of New York concerns a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants on January 24, 2021. The order does not describe the claims or arguments in that motion.
The court required the plaintiffs to notify the court and defendants by February 8, 2021, whether they intended to file an amended pleading or rely on the challenged pleading. The order warned that declining to amend in response to fully briefed defects might waive the right to use the amendment process later.
Judge Alison J. Nathan also stated that, if the plaintiffs amended, the defendants could answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or state that they relied on their original motion. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- E.G. v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-09879
- John Cronan
- Jan. 25, 2021
Background
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 24, 2021. The opinion does not state the claims, the grounds for dismissal, or the parties’ underlying factual positions.
Order
Under Rule 3.F of the court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, the plaintiffs had to notify the court and the defendants in writing by February 8, 2021, whether they intended to file an amended pleading and when they would do so, or whether they 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 in the defendants’ motion might constitute a waiver of the plaintiffs’ right to use the amendment process to cure defects made apparent by the defendants’ briefing. The court 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.
Possible Next Steps
If the plaintiffs amended, the defendants could file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that they relied on the initially filed motion. The order stated that it did not change the deadlines for amending, answering, or moving under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules.
Disposition
Judge Alison J. Nathan issued a procedural order directing the plaintiffs to state whether they would amend or rely on their existing pleading. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.