Gartenhaus v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc.
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-09900
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Gartenhaus v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Judge Briccetti extended plaintiffs’ deadline to amend or oppose the motion to dismiss.
Esther Gartenhaus and Shalom Stern were given additional time to amend their complaint or oppose Financial Recovery Services, Inc.’s motion to dismiss.
What happened
Gartenhaus v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc. concerns plaintiffs Esther Gartenhaus and Shalom Stern’s response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The court had allowed plaintiffs to choose between filing an amended complaint and opposing the motion. Plaintiffs said they intended to amend, but they did not file an amended complaint or oppose the motion by the deadline.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti extended the deadline to February 1, 2021. He warned that, without a filing or request for more time, the motion would be treated as unopposed and another chance to amend was unlikely.
The detailed version
- Gartenhaus v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc. · No. 7:20-cv-09900
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 26, 2021
Background
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on December 21, 2020. The court then directed Esther Gartenhaus and Shalom Stern to tell the court whether they intended to file an amended complaint in response or would rely on their original complaint and oppose the motion.
On January 4, 2021, plaintiffs notified the court that they intended to amend their complaint. Their amended complaint was due January 18, 2021, but they had not filed it or opposed the motion by the date of this order.
Ruling
The court extended plaintiffs’ time to file an amended complaint, oppose the pending motion to dismiss, or request more time until February 1, 2021. The court stated that if plaintiffs did none of those things by that date, the original complaint would be treated as the operative complaint and the motion to dismiss would be considered unopposed. The court also stated that it was unlikely to give plaintiffs another opportunity to amend to address deficiencies identified in the motion’s fully developed arguments.
This order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the merits of the claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.